WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The cost of accessibility

for

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Oct 5, 2010 8:36AM

Hi Simius,

On 2010-10-05, at 6:50 AM, Simius Puer wrote:

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

Lol, you stole my joke right there. <grin>


> 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.

Yes, these are meant as estimates, nothing more. It may change from one project to another and some projects will require more efforts than others.

But again, considering we're talking about a skilled team working on a project whose scope determines the budget, a more complicated goal would probably mean a bigger budget. Therefore, the costs of accessibitiy would potentially increase accordingly, not exponentially.


> 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.

Oh. I've been around accountants and governments officials plenty, so I know exactly what you're referring to. <grin>


> "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.

Well, my estimates do not include user testing or any sort of focus groups with people with disabilities. Costs like that could be added and planned of course, but I'm assuming a skilled team knows how to test with a screen reader or any kind of zooming software to see if what they developed is device-independent and compatible with most assistive technologies.


> + 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 ;]

Yes, but the extra effort can still be measured, even though it's seamlessly integrated in their practice.


> + 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.

We probably all agree in here that the benefits of accessibility far exceeds the costs to put it in place. This is not the issue here.

However fantastic the accessibility investment may be and however great it is to actively work at making the web more usable by all, it still requires more work from the developers part.

The WAI's use case for accessibility does a great job at showing us why it's worth it. But at the end of the day, dealing with 150 alt attributes I could have otherwise discarded still adds up to some extra time. It's cost related even though it would be pointless to try and determined the average number of seconds required to treat one specific alt attribute.

The idea here is not to try and measure how much it would've cost not to deal with them. That would be a totally different (though very interesting nonetheless) topic.


> + 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"?

I agree. See comment above. <grin>


> + 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!).

Agreed. And I'm not. Which is exactly why I'm not even trying to measure how much every little intervention costs, but rather a ballpark percentage.


> 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.

Though I agree with you theoretically, you are looking at this from an angle that is totally incompatible with government reasoning and therefore, inadmissible to them.

Managers need numbers. So do accountants. You cannot expect them to see the greater good in accessibility, unless it matches with a tangible, rock-solid investment.

In Quebec, we are coming up with mandatory standards. Managers will be held accountable if their organization aren't complying with them.

No matter how much each and every one of those managers may believe this is the right thing to do, it still bugs the hell out of them to have to deal with this extra "burden", especially considering that no extra funds are being granted to make accessibility happen.



--
Denis Boudreau
Téléphone : +1 514.730.9168
Courriel : <EMAIL REMOVED>