WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The cost of accessibility

for

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Oct 5, 2010 8:00AM

Even if you start out with trained people, there will still be costs--if nothing else, there will be costs in continued education.

The fact is accessibility changes over time. The best practice techniques we use today are different from what we used 4 years ago.

For me, there are two types of accessibility expense. One is the expense incurred by a project team to make a specific web site or application accessible. The other expense is ensuring the environment the project team is using and that the users are working in makes it possible to create accessible sites effectively and use accessible sites effectively.

Although maybe I should separate the development environment from the user environment.
-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Karlen Communications
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:42 AM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

I've also tried to start a discussion here in Ontario on inclusive
curriculum for primary, secondary and tertiary education -
http://www.karlencommunications.com/adobe/OntarioEducationAndAODA.pdf

It is a tagged PDF document and is accessible. I've been quietly advocating
this for years and finally put "pen to paper."

If we have graduates with the skills base to begin with there is no
additional cost because it is simply what we do. We don't have to retrain
employees and new products would be inherently accessible.

Again, just thinking out loud.....Cheers, Karen



-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Don Mauck
Sent: October-05-10 9:25 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

One other thing I like to point out in my workshops; the cost of
accessibility can have a lot more zeros after it if you do it when forced to
rather than doing it during the process. It is much cheaper to be proactive
than reactive.

Regards,
 Don


Don Mauck | Accessibility Evangelist
Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
7700 Technology Way
Denver CO 80237
Phone (303) 334-4184
Email  <EMAIL REMOVED>  
 


Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect
the environment



-----Original Message-----
From: steven [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:21 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

I don't think anybody has expressed the problem quite as clearly as you did
with that statement, Karen.

"How do we determine the cost of spell checking documents or any other
normal process in creating content?"

Indeed, a fine example of how an immeasurable factor can be/is already
factored in.

Seems clear enough that if something is generally quite important, it will
be an optional costs like air conditioning in a car. If something is
paramount, it is factored in as a necessity, like an engine in a car. After
all, how many car adverts make mention that there car comes with an engine -
other than a high performance car - let alone see a buyer look under the
hood when buying a new car!?

Regards,

Steven




-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Karlen
Communications
Sent: 05 October 2010 12:14
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

I agree, if the team is skilled and inherently create accessible/compliant
content and environments any "additional" or even "costs" would be in
filling out the forms to satisfy the legislative conformance.

How do we determine the cost of spell checking documents or any other
"normal" process in creating content? This is the example I use when this
question arises in workshops. Would we stop spell checking documents if we
had to attach a cost to it? Would we make decisions on how much of a
document is spell checked depending on our perceived additional costs of
spell checking a document?

I chose spell checking a document for my example of this issue in workshops
because I could also argue that "forcing me to spell check my documents
impedes my creativity" which is another issue that arises when talking about
accessible/universal design.

As a Canadian I know that accessible document design is "relatively new" to
us so organizations are fearing an endless dribble of money with no ROI. As
with other countries who have had legislative criteria for a number of
years, the first fear of implementation is additional cost. As others have
pointed out the benefits of inclusive design affect a broader population.

As a personal aside I find it interesting that in the last two months my
"mantra" has been " we should no longer be accommodated for but included in"
digital document design.

Just pondering out loud....Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Simius Puer
Sent: October-05-10 6:51 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

Define "hi folks" ...just kidding ;]

Seriously though, I know what you are asking and I'd have to agree that
estimating anything more than a rough ball-park % is almost impossible to
put a generic figure on such a task.

To be honest, to try to be any more precise than this seems to me both a
little dangerous and also a bit pointless (I can already hear a million
accountants screaming at me!).

"Dangerous" because if you have accountants running part of the show (as is
impossible to avoid with Government websites) then exceeding an estimate can
prove problematic - anyone who has been in this situation knows what I'm
talking about.

"Pointless" because one major part of proper accessibility testing (as
opposed to using the tick-box approach) is real-user testing - and this can
throw up all manner of problems, some of which can be quick-fixes whilst
others may impact more need more serious remedial efforts. This alone
prevents any accurate estimations...but in addition to that there are a few
questions that need to be asked and a few assumptions challenged.

+ Overheads vs Explicit Costs +

If you have a "fully-skilled, fully-experienced team at your disposal" then
much of your cost is already hidden. These people are at the core of any
successful accessibility efforts. The more experienced they are the less
unexpected problems you will face alone the way. So whilst an experienced
team will increase your overheads they should decrease your project-specific
costs. Try measuring that with any success ;]

+ Cost vs Investment +

Why do people always talk about the "cost" of accessibility? This in itself
is very damaging as it infers something that is spent for no reason or
return. Accessibility should be considered an "investment". For eCommerce
sites this can come through removing barriers, brand building/loyalty and
even simply just better SEO (more on that below) - all providing returns
which in themselves are impossible to quantify with any major accuracy.
Even on non-eCommerce sites this is true as these sites are often there to
provide services and information in a manner which is more cost effective
than other methods - thus the more people you can reach by this manner saves
budget elsewhere. And as with any technological development you may not see
your return right away as it can take for your market (commercial or
otherwise) to accept, trust and adapt to using your new distribution
channel.

+ Compartmentalising Costs and Return +

How do you separate accessibility costs from others involved in the
development of a new website? And indeed, how do you measure the return? I
mentioned before that accessibility impacts on SEO - many of the practices
that improve one improve the other (I'm talking white-hat not black-hat SEO
here of course!). I won't re-cover this point in depth in this thread but
just ask yourself how you would allocate the costs? For example, if you
caption videos are you doing it for accessibility or SEO? Where do you
allocate the cost...or more precisely put, the "investment"?

+ What Level of Accessibility +

Now, this is dangerous territory indeed. Any true champion of accessibility
will tell you that you can not simply use the tick-box approach. Meeting
any set standard is measurable but does it genuinely mean your website is
accessible? No. Sadly this makes measurement, and thus the associated
costs, pretty elusive.

Every element of accessibility you add in has associated costs and, as I
have pointed out, associated benefits. However, the reality is also that
there are diminishing returns on any accessibility efforts (just as with any
other area of investment). If you try to measure each aspect on a
case-by-case basis you will end up spending more on justifying each point
than just getting it done. An accountant can not make the call as to where
to draw a line - only an experienced professional with a good understanding
of the target market can do this, and even then it really is more of a
judgment call (and yes, sometimes professionals to need to make these!).

Depending on which country/countries you are operating in and the
legislation in place there you may already have a baseline to aim for...but
anyone aiming for the "minimum" should probably not be involved in
accessibility in the first place.


Your question still remains and is perfectly valid, but I think it may need
to evolve a little depending on exactly what it is you want to achieve with
your study. If it is simply a case of getting a ballpark % figure then I
think your 2-5% is a reasonable rule-of-thumb. Personally though I don't
see much value in that approach and I think you need to wrestle with the
accountants to get them to understand the bigger impact of accessibility and
to stop treating it as something that needs to be costed as an individual
item.

Disclaimer: No accountants were harmed in the writing of this email ;]