WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The cost of accessibility

for

From: Steve Green
Date: Oct 5, 2010 11:27AM

"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."

That's a deeply flawed assumption. Most highly-skilled developers have no
idea how to test with a screen reader or other assistive technologies even
though they think they do. Only a tiny number have had any contact with
people who use these tools. Virtually none have been trained by someone who
understands how the assistive technologies are used in practice and
understands the needs of the users.

At the current levels of skill and experience, I would pretty much discount
any testing done by developers. Expert review by a professional tester with
the appropriate experience is the bare minimum in order to be able to make a
plausible claim that a website is accessible, and user testing is
preferable.

Steve Green
Director
Test Partners Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Denis Boudreau
Sent: 05 October 2010 15:12
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The cost of accessibility

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>