E-mail List Archives
Re: WebAIM Discussion List Digest 08.10.2004. (Kurt... is on his honeymoon.)
From: Kurt Bendl
Date: Oct 8, 2004 1:02AM
- Next message: Victoria Hamill: "Re: Unclosed list tags"
- Previous message: Raena Armitage: "Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None
- View all messages in this Thread
Hi,
My email program received your email. That's good.
Unfortunately,I won't be available to read it for a week
or so, as I've gone and done a damned fool thing like
get married.
I'd check my email while I'm away, but my sweetheart
would most likely bludgeon me with various, forcibly
removed, parts of my anatomy, and after that, well...
(You get the idea. No working while on the post-nuputal
escapades for me.)
If you have an immediate University-related issue, please
send email to :
<EMAIL REMOVED>
....and some friendly, competent, kind-hearted person will do his
best to serve you as he handles both our already over-booked
work loads.
Best regards,
Kurt
>>> webaim-forum 10/08/04 03:00 >>>
WebAIM Discussion List Digest 08.10.2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:17:19 -0600
Thanks. However, I'm in Canada and
American legislation isn't relevant here, in this case. The client
would
be partaking in web accessibility voluntarily, based on its merits and
benefits. Besides, I thought last week we were discussing it may
be best
to keep web accessibility out of the court system. Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original
Message-----From: jgugerty
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]Sent: Wednesday, October 06,
2004 6:14 AMTo: WebAIM Discussion ListSubject: Re:
[WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet againFrom a slightly
larger perspective, note the potential legal costs and time costs if
accessibility is omitted/overlooked/neglected, and someone files an
OCR/504/ADA complaint. Once that process starts, life can get very
interesting
very fast. >;>;>; <EMAIL REMOVED> 10/5/2004 4:33:28 PM
>;>;>;
Thanks Julian,To be honest, I prefer doing the audit, which
details what needs to be doneand why, and then let "their people" do
the
grunt work. It avoids the "ok,could you change this and that
too"
and then I'm not responsible for anygoof ups. So, in that case,
the
total costs are out of my hands.From my understanding ( I don't drive
), once the mechanic knows what iswrong, he can give a fairly accurate
estimate that that it will cost [intime or money ] to replace the
brake
pads, align the tires, whatever -- likethere is a rate list. Is
there something like that in web accessibility?Something I could
include
in my audit or am I asking for the moon here?I am thinking of
something like:- include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5
mins- convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr-
etcOf course it would still be an ESTIMATE, but it may comfort
business peoplehaving a rough approximation of cost. I am
thinking
in order to havebusiness buy into web accessibility, we need to speak
business language.Are we any where close to providing such
information? Or is there anotherapproach I'm
missing?Cheers,Glenda-----Original Message-----From:
julian.rickards [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]Sent:
Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:28 PMTo: WebAIM Discussion ListSubject:
Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet againAs you said,
a mechanic cannot provide an estimate before examining yourcar, you
can't
provide an estimate before you examine their site. However,recognize
that
many mechanics will do a very cursory report on the state ofyour piece
of
junk (sorry, thinking of my car at the moment) and producejust a
starting
estimate for the work. How many times have you gone in toget the brake
pads changed to be told that your rotors need grinding andyour brake
lines
are leaking. You could do a cursory audit for free or adetailed audit
for
a price.I personally would recommend that you state the two options
and price outthe full audit (as best you can) and then as one aspect
of
the audit report,provide an estimate of what it will take to make the
site
accessible. If youprice the audit and rebuild separately, you can then
get
paid for the audit,whether or not they go for the rebuild. You could
offer
a discount on theaudit if they go for the rebuild as an incentive but
that
is your call.Secondly, as you may have seen recently, a number of big
name sites havebeen reworked to use current standard code such as ESPN
and
Yahoo!.Recently, Zeldman (Happy Cog) did a rebuild of the Kansas City
Chiefswebsite which also involved a bit of a redesign too. Your client
may
notwant just a rebuild but also a redesign which would entail more
time
(money)and effort (money). Therefore, you must spend more time and
effort
workingout the details of the rebuild so that a rebuild does not turn
into
aredesign (without your consent) or that you are properly paid for
therebuild and redesign.Just my 2
cents,Jules-----------------------------------------------Julian
RickardsA/Digital Publications Distribution CoordinatorPublication
Services Section,Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,Vox:
705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960-----Original
Message-----From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]Sent:
Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:07 PMTo: WebAIM Discussion ListSubject:
[WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet againHi all,A
web developer has offered to pitch my services ( Web
accessibilityaudits )
to his clients. I've prepared a quote to do an audit for one
ofhis
client's sites. However he would like to know the TOTAL COST for
makinga site accessible. I understand business needs to know the
bottom linebefore undertaking a project. But, in my mind, there
are
determiningfactors: level of accessibility adopted [this will be
totally
voluntary ontheir part], site size and complexity, when accessibility
will
beimplemented [new site or retrofit an existing site], is training in
WebContent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [or equivalent accessible
guidelines]necessary, etc.Asking the TOTAL cost before I complete
the audit, to me, is like asking acar mechanic how much repairs will
cost
before the mechanic even knows whatis wrong with the car.In order
to satisfy, as much as possible, the business need to know thebottom
line
before proceeding, is there any information out there on thecosts to
retrofit a site? For example, adding an ALT takes X
Time,separating
structure from presentation takes Y time, etc.And, of course, I need
this information as soon as possible -- like there isany other time on
my
watch!I anxiously await your enlightening
feedback.Cheers,Glenda---Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).Version:
6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04----To
subscribe or unsubscribe, visit
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/----To
subscribe or unsubscribe, visit
http://www.webaim.org/discussion/---Incoming
mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).Version:
6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04---Outgoing
mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system
(http://www.grisoft.com).Version:
6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04----To
subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:20:01 -0600
Chris, my apologies. With my speech impairment it is easier to spit out
ALT
tag than ALT attribute. I guess that habit carries over to my writing
too.
I'll try to do better.
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: lists38 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 2:37 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
>
> On 06/10/2004, at 8:33 AM, glenda wrote:
>
>> I am thinking of something like:
>>
>> - include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5 mins
>> - convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr
>> - etc
ALT is and stays and attribute, not a tag. I rip my hair out daily when
training people and seeing bla.
--
Chris Heilmann
http://icant.co.uk/ | http://www.onlinetools.org/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 00:35:32 -0600
Hi Kevin,
Just to be sure I follow you: that 1-2 hours per webpage is simply for
the
audit and report, not any retrofitting, correct? Do you provide an
estimate
for the retrofitting / rebuild PRIOR to do the audit?? That is where
I'm
stuck: how can one provide a total cost prior to doing the audit?
To be honest, and I hope I'm not publicly destroying my reputation ( or
illusion of reputation ), I'm more into doing the audits than the
retrofits.
I don't have the foggiest how long it takes someone to correct the
errors I
point out. Is there any way I can obtain that information?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:25 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
In doing a pile of accessibility reviews in the past few months I've
found
that I can quote an audit at about 1-2 hours per HTML page and that
includes
a reasonable cushion for meetings, familiarizing yourself with the site,
and
anything else involved in the audit process. So a 10 page site would
take an
estimated 20 hours and you may get through it in 10 if you're quick or
the
pages are small. You can write the report as you go if you have a simple
template set up to record the location, type, and recommendations for
the
problems you find.
You should have a good idea of how badly screwed up it is after looking
at a
sampling of the pages. I've noticed that developers usually mess up the
same
things over and over again. Once you know that you should be able to
provide
some better estimates for how long the actual rebuild would take. Until
you
look at things like the layout, quality of existing code, use of proper
attributes, use of templates or a CMS system and other site specific
factors
your estimate for fixing the site could be off by an order of magnitude.
-Kevin Hall
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:33 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Thanks Julian,
To be honest, I prefer doing the audit, which details what needs to be
done
and why, and then let "their people" do the grunt work. It avoids the
"ok,
could you change this and that too" and then I'm not responsible for any
goof ups. So, in that case, the total costs are out of my hands.
>From my understanding ( I don't drive ), once the mechanic knows what
is
wrong, he can give a fairly accurate estimate that that it will cost [in
time or money ] to replace the brake pads, align the tires, whatever --
like
there is a rate list. Is there something like that in web
accessibility?
Something I could include in my audit or am I asking for the moon here?
I am thinking of something like:
- include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5 mins
- convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr
- etc
Of course it would still be an ESTIMATE, but it may comfort business
people
having a rough approximation of cost. I am thinking in order to have
business buy into web accessibility, we need to speak business language.
Are we any where close to providing such information? Or is there
another
approach I'm missing?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: julian.rickards [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:28 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
As you said, a mechanic cannot provide an estimate before examining your
car, you can't provide an estimate before you examine their site.
However,
recognize that many mechanics will do a very cursory report on the state
of
your piece of junk (sorry, thinking of my car at the moment) and produce
just a starting estimate for the work. How many times have you gone in
to
get the brake pads changed to be told that your rotors need grinding and
your brake lines are leaking. You could do a cursory audit for free or a
detailed audit for a price.
I personally would recommend that you state the two options and price
out
the full audit (as best you can) and then as one aspect of the audit
report,
provide an estimate of what it will take to make the site accessible. If
you
price the audit and rebuild separately, you can then get paid for the
audit,
whether or not they go for the rebuild. You could offer a discount on
the
audit if they go for the rebuild as an incentive but that is your call.
Secondly, as you may have seen recently, a number of big name sites have
been reworked to use current standard code such as ESPN and Yahoo!.
Recently, Zeldman (Happy Cog) did a rebuild of the Kansas City Chiefs
website which also involved a bit of a redesign too. Your client may not
want just a rebuild but also a redesign which would entail more time
(money)
and effort (money). Therefore, you must spend more time and effort
working
out the details of the rebuild so that a rebuild does not turn into a
redesign (without your consent) or that you are properly paid for the
rebuild and redesign.
Just my 2 cents,
Jules
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:07 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Hi all,
A web developer has offered to pitch my services ( Web accessibility
audits ) to his clients. I've prepared a quote to do an audit for one
of
his client's sites. However he would like to know the TOTAL COST for
making
a site accessible. I understand business needs to know the bottom line
before undertaking a project. But, in my mind, there are determining
factors: level of accessibility adopted [this will be totally voluntary
on
their part], site size and complexity, when accessibility will be
implemented [new site or retrofit an existing site], is training in Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [or equivalent accessible
guidelines]
necessary, etc.
Asking the TOTAL cost before I complete the audit, to me, is like asking
a
car mechanic how much repairs will cost before the mechanic even knows
what
is wrong with the car.
In order to satisfy, as much as possible, the business need to know the
bottom line before proceeding, is there any information out there on the
costs to retrofit a site? For example, adding an ALT takes X Time,
separating structure from presentation takes Y time, etc.
And, of course, I need this information as soon as possible -- like
there is
any other time on my watch!
I anxiously await your enlightening feedback.
Cheers,
Glenda
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:22:22 -0600
On 07/10/2004, at 5:18 PM, glenda wrote:
> Besides, I thought last week we were discussing it may be best to
> keep web accessibility out of the court system.
Except for the bit where I *tried* so very hard to point out that it
was already *in* the court system here, and is very well documented at
that. The law's been laid out clear for us in Australia and we even
have constructive advice from our relevant government bodies.
Can't wait for the rest of you guys to catch up. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 05:50:14 -0600
> -----Original Message-----
> From: raena [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: 07 October 2004 08:22
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
>
> On 07/10/2004, at 5:18 PM, glenda wrote:
>
> > Besides, I thought last week we were discussing it may be best to
> > keep web accessibility out of the court system.
>
> Except for the bit where I *tried* so very hard to point out that it
> was already *in* the court system here, and is very well
> documented at
> that. The law's been laid out clear for us in Australia and we even
> have constructive advice from our relevant government bodies.
>
> Can't wait for the rest of you guys to catch up. :)
And some of you may remember that I pointed out that the Australian law
failed in its primary objective, since the Olympic Games site was never
made
fully accessible, hence the second fine. In the end no-one won, (apart
from
the Lawyers.)
Mike
********************************************************************
This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing,
forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you
Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting
********************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Unclosed list tags
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 06:10:45 -0600
Thanks all for your help on this. I'll stick to lists, as that seems to
be
the most harmless.
In answer to Deryck's question about what DOCTYPE we're using, I wish we
even had one! The site in question is running on Domino 5, which refuses
to
produce a doctype at all, so all of our attempts at accessibility are
hindered immediately. Fortunately the latest version of Domino, and thus
our later sites, do generate a DOCTYPE, so at least the future is bright
:-)
Victoria
-----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Hamill
NetInfo
Phone: (44) 1628-687863
Email: <EMAIL REMOVED>
URL: http://www.netinfo.com
- More than meets the eye
"jkorpela"
< <EMAIL REMOVED> .
fi>
To
"WebAIM Discussion List"
06/10/2004 21:21
cc
Please respond to
Subject
"WebAIM Re: [WebAIM] Re[2]: Unclosed list
Discussion List" tags
<webaim-forum@lis
t.webaim.org>
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Jared Smith wrote:
> > but real XHTML won't be suitable for the WWW for years (since IE
> > does not support real XHTML).
>
> Could you please explain why? IE is far from perfect, but it certainly
> seems to support XHTML to me (at least in recent IE versions).
The operative word is "seems".
If you send a document labelled (in HTTP headers) with
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
to IE, it will get mad - just start a "Save As" dialogue.
The only way to make IE understand XHTML at all is to mis-label
it as text/html, which means that IE will process it as HTML.
If you are cautious and apply the (in)famous appendix C of the
XHTML 1.0 specification, you might manage to fool IE into treating your
XHTML document the right way.
> It may not
> have the best support for CSS styling of XHTML content, but I don't
> see any cases where true, standards-based XHTML breaks in IE.
_Any_ true XHTML breaks it.
Besides, XHTML 1.0 gives _no_ functional improvement over HTML 4.01.
It's only when you go beyond XHTML 1.0 in the XHTML road when you find
something potentially useful. But then you can't any more fool IE
into processing it as HTML, so it goes into pieces. And this will
probably
remain the situation until Longhorn is on the market, and how long will
it
take before it gets even 50 % penetration worldwide?
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: An attempt at an accessible web site...Please review
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 06:45:29 -0600
If you use a graphic of text, then the alt
attribute should contain the same content as the graphic.
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards A/Digital Publications Distribution
Coordinator Publication Services
Section, Ministry of Northern
Development and Mines, Vox:
705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----From: jeb
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:08
PMTo: WebAIM Discussion ListSubject: Re: [WebAIM] An
attempt at an accessible web site...Please review
The rest of the folks
have noted the major "errors" in your HTML, so I will not repeat
these. But
your descriptions for ALT attributes also should be mentioned.
While it is not
mentioned specifically in any standards that I am aware of, a
colleague of
mine strongly recommends that the text in the ALT attribute match the
text in
the graphic. This would mean the CWD.gif should have ALT that reads
"confidtech.com." The rationale for this is that people who use voice
command
technology (as opposed to keyboard or mouse) would not necessarily be
able to
"click" this link because they would be speaking "Confidtech.com logo
and link
to web site." I think I have that right...anyway, the recommended
method is to
have the two match.
It is a minor (perhaps
overly anal) issue, but while you're at it....might as well fix
everything.
Anyone else know about
this method want to chime in?
jeb
John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine
USA
<EMAIL REMOVED>
www.jebswebs.com
From: jmoyn2339 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 10:10 AMTo: WebAIM
Discussion ListSubject: [WebAIM] An attempt at an accessible web
site...Please review
Hi Everyone,
I would greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions with regard
this
web site....http://wdom.org/
This is my first attempt at an accessible web site and just wanted
some
input as to how I did?...If it needs any changes...
Thanks,
John
<EMAIL REMOVED>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:20:22 -0600
I don't think you need even 1 hour per page to do an audit. If you use
one
of the browser Accessibility tools for IE or Firefox/Mozilla and with a
copy
of the WCAG beside you, you can (1) check for tables, (2) check for
headings, (3) check for deprecated tags, (4) run an HTML & CSS
validator,
(5) disable styles, (6) highlight images without alt, (7) disable
JavaScript, (8) replace images with alt text, etc. You can then jot down
notes on compliance against each checkpoint. Once the first page is
done,
likely, the same types of mistakes are made in the rest of the pages and
you
can do faster checks with the rest of them. For example, if the company
logo
graphic has an alt attribute of alt="logo.gif, 15kb", you can assume
that
all pages do the same: check a couple to confirm this.
In many cases, web pages are built from the same template so mistakes
made
at the outset are carried through. Once you have spent an hour or so on
the
first page, you can check several more to see if they do the same thing.
I don't think you would have to specify that Page abc.html needs the
data
table fixed but Page def.html has no data tables. If you have to fix a
data
table in one page, even if only 10% of the pages use data tables, you
have
to fix them so I would identify that as a "to fix" item in the audit. It
may
be that some pages use features not found on others and by the time you
have
reviewed the whole site (perhaps even before you review every page on
the
site), you may have identified an error with every checkpoint in WCAG
1.0
(at whatever priority level you or the client decides upon) but not
every
error may occur on every page.
I suspect that 2-3 hours may be sufficient to review the whole site and
another hour to write a report.
Another thing to consider is not to identify how to fix the errors but
instead identify the checkpoint that isn't met and what it means to
accessibility. For example "Proper data table structure enables screen
reader users to associate data with the headings. For example, in a
calendar
table, a screen reader user can stop at the table cell containing the
text
Staff Meeting and ask the screen reader to read out the headings for
that
cell. The screen reader will read out Tuesday, 10AM and the user will
know
that the staff meeting will be held on Tuesday at 10AM. Visual users can
glance to the top cell of the column and read Tuesday and to the left
cell
of the row to read 10AM and draw the same conclusions. With proper table
formatting, screen reader software can provide the association of the
data
to the headings: without proper table formatting, all of the table
content
is just data with no relationship to each other." This type of
information
does not tell the client what they should do (providing them with a
means to
hire someone else or do it themselves) but it helps them understand how
people who need accessibility benefit from the fix and it justifies the
effort you need to apply to make the fixes. Knowledge is power: if you
provide your client with the knowledge and understanding of how
accessibility benefits the visitors who need it, they will be more
willing
to have the work done.
HTH,
Jules
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: "glenda"
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> .
com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 2:37 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Hi Kevin,
Just to be sure I follow you: that 1-2 hours per webpage is simply for
the
audit and report, not any retrofitting, correct? Do you provide an
estimate
for the retrofitting / rebuild PRIOR to do the audit?? That is where
I'm
stuck: how can one provide a total cost prior to doing the audit?
To be honest, and I hope I'm not publicly destroying my reputation ( or
illusion of reputation ), I'm more into doing the audits than the
retrofits.
I don't have the foggiest how long it takes someone to correct the
errors I
point out. Is there any way I can obtain that information?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:25 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
In doing a pile of accessibility reviews in the past few months I've
found
that I can quote an audit at about 1-2 hours per HTML page and that
includes
a reasonable cushion for meetings, familiarizing yourself with the site,
and
anything else involved in the audit process. So a 10 page site would
take an
estimated 20 hours and you may get through it in 10 if you're quick or
the
pages are small. You can write the report as you go if you have a simple
template set up to record the location, type, and recommendations for
the
problems you find.
You should have a good idea of how badly screwed up it is after looking
at a
sampling of the pages. I've noticed that developers usually mess up the
same
things over and over again. Once you know that you should be able to
provide
some better estimates for how long the actual rebuild would take. Until
you
look at things like the layout, quality of existing code, use of proper
attributes, use of templates or a CMS system and other site specific
factors
your estimate for fixing the site could be off by an order of magnitude.
-Kevin Hall
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:33 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Thanks Julian,
To be honest, I prefer doing the audit, which details what needs to be
done
and why, and then let "their people" do the grunt work. It avoids the
"ok,
could you change this and that too" and then I'm not responsible for any
goof ups. So, in that case, the total costs are out of my hands.
>From my understanding ( I don't drive ), once the mechanic knows what
is
wrong, he can give a fairly accurate estimate that that it will cost [in
time or money ] to replace the brake pads, align the tires, whatever --
like
there is a rate list. Is there something like that in web
accessibility?
Something I could include in my audit or am I asking for the moon here?
I am thinking of something like:
- include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5 mins
- convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr
- etc
Of course it would still be an ESTIMATE, but it may comfort business
people
having a rough approximation of cost. I am thinking in order to have
business buy into web accessibility, we need to speak business language.
Are we any where close to providing such information? Or is there
another
approach I'm missing?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: julian.rickards [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:28 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
As you said, a mechanic cannot provide an estimate before examining your
car, you can't provide an estimate before you examine their site.
However,
recognize that many mechanics will do a very cursory report on the state
of
your piece of junk (sorry, thinking of my car at the moment) and produce
just a starting estimate for the work. How many times have you gone in
to
get the brake pads changed to be told that your rotors need grinding and
your brake lines are leaking. You could do a cursory audit for free or a
detailed audit for a price.
I personally would recommend that you state the two options and price
out
the full audit (as best you can) and then as one aspect of the audit
report,
provide an estimate of what it will take to make the site accessible. If
you
price the audit and rebuild separately, you can then get paid for the
audit,
whether or not they go for the rebuild. You could offer a discount on
the
audit if they go for the rebuild as an incentive but that is your call.
Secondly, as you may have seen recently, a number of big name sites have
been reworked to use current standard code such as ESPN and Yahoo!.
Recently, Zeldman (Happy Cog) did a rebuild of the Kansas City Chiefs
website which also involved a bit of a redesign too. Your client may not
want just a rebuild but also a redesign which would entail more time
(money)
and effort (money). Therefore, you must spend more time and effort
working
out the details of the rebuild so that a rebuild does not turn into a
redesign (without your consent) or that you are properly paid for the
rebuild and redesign.
Just my 2 cents,
Jules
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:07 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Hi all,
A web developer has offered to pitch my services ( Web accessibility
audits ) to his clients. I've prepared a quote to do an audit for one
of
his client's sites. However he would like to know the TOTAL COST for
making
a site accessible. I understand business needs to know the bottom line
before undertaking a project. But, in my mind, there are determining
factors: level of accessibility adopted [this will be totally voluntary
on
their part], site size and complexity, when accessibility will be
implemented [new site or retrofit an existing site], is training in Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [or equivalent accessible
guidelines]
necessary, etc.
Asking the TOTAL cost before I complete the audit, to me, is like asking
a
car mechanic how much repairs will cost before the mechanic even knows
what
is wrong with the car.
In order to satisfy, as much as possible, the business need to know the
bottom line before proceeding, is there any information out there on the
costs to retrofit a site? For example, adding an ALT takes X Time,
separating structure from presentation takes Y time, etc.
And, of course, I need this information as soon as possible -- like
there is
any other time on my watch!
I anxiously await your enlightening feedback.
Cheers,
Glenda
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:53:44 -0600
My numbers may be a bit large, I was making a few unstated assumptions
(perhaps making a you know what out of u and me)... that the web site
was reasonably complex, that there was little experience auditing sites,
and that the client would be a serious pain to deal with - all worst
case scenarios. Additionally, I always make it a practice to provide
detailed recommendations for fixing any problems I find. Sometimes this
involves a bit of work when there a serious or obscure problems
involving the markup or code used.
I've found that after time I was getting through reviewing pages and
writing a detailed report in about 20-30 minutes per page for complex
pages and less than that for simple ones. That includes validating the
code, using the Firefox Developers Toolbar by Chris Pederick to run a
bunch of quick check s on the page, and manually inspecting the code. I
then include all of my findings and recommendations in a detailed
report. It starts to go pretty quickly once you are in the groove of
things.
I think that a good accessibility audit will:
* identify the guidelines that are being violated
* where problems occur in the site
* what the effect is on users
* how to fix the problems
Julian, I like that you are emphasizing educating the client. That is
crucial if you want them to make any difficult changes that you
recommend. The more you can make them understand the cost and benefits
of accessibility the better off you will be.
As for estimating the time to fix the problems you find, you are
reducing it by providing detailed recommendations. However, I think that
until you have an understanding of how drastic the changes are that must
be made, whether they are semantic or syntactic changes, and how they
will be made (templates, hand coding, etc.) it is impossible to give
even a rough estimate of how long fixing the problems will take. Things
like page size and number of pages will also have a big impact on the
estimate.
I hope that this helps out a bit.
Regards,
-Kevin Hall
-----Original Message-----
From: julian.rickards [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 9:17 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
I don't think you need even 1 hour per page to do an audit. If you use
one
of the browser Accessibility tools for IE or Firefox/Mozilla and with a
copy
of the WCAG beside you, you can (1) check for tables, (2) check for
headings, (3) check for deprecated tags, (4) run an HTML & CSS
validator,
(5) disable styles, (6) highlight images without alt, (7) disable
JavaScript, (8) replace images with alt text, etc. You can then jot down
notes on compliance against each checkpoint. Once the first page is
done,
likely, the same types of mistakes are made in the rest of the pages and
you
can do faster checks with the rest of them. For example, if the company
logo
graphic has an alt attribute of alt="logo.gif, 15kb", you can assume
that
all pages do the same: check a couple to confirm this.
In many cases, web pages are built from the same template so mistakes
made
at the outset are carried through. Once you have spent an hour or so on
the
first page, you can check several more to see if they do the same thing.
I don't think you would have to specify that Page abc.html needs the
data
table fixed but Page def.html has no data tables. If you have to fix a
data
table in one page, even if only 10% of the pages use data tables, you
have
to fix them so I would identify that as a "to fix" item in the audit. It
may
be that some pages use features not found on others and by the time you
have
reviewed the whole site (perhaps even before you review every page on
the
site), you may have identified an error with every checkpoint in WCAG
1.0
(at whatever priority level you or the client decides upon) but not
every
error may occur on every page.
I suspect that 2-3 hours may be sufficient to review the whole site and
another hour to write a report.
Another thing to consider is not to identify how to fix the errors but
instead identify the checkpoint that isn't met and what it means to
accessibility. For example "Proper data table structure enables screen
reader users to associate data with the headings. For example, in a
calendar
table, a screen reader user can stop at the table cell containing the
text
Staff Meeting and ask the screen reader to read out the headings for
that
cell. The screen reader will read out Tuesday, 10AM and the user will
know
that the staff meeting will be held on Tuesday at 10AM. Visual users can
glance to the top cell of the column and read Tuesday and to the left
cell
of the row to read 10AM and draw the same conclusions. With proper table
formatting, screen reader software can provide the association of the
data
to the headings: without proper table formatting, all of the table
content
is just data with no relationship to each other." This type of
information
does not tell the client what they should do (providing them with a
means to
hire someone else or do it themselves) but it helps them understand how
people who need accessibility benefit from the fix and it justifies the
effort you need to apply to make the fixes. Knowledge is power: if you
provide your client with the knowledge and understanding of how
accessibility benefits the visitors who need it, they will be more
willing
to have the work done.
HTH,
Jules
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: "glenda"
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> .
com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 2:37 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Hi Kevin,
Just to be sure I follow you: that 1-2 hours per webpage is simply for
the
audit and report, not any retrofitting, correct? Do you provide an
estimate
for the retrofitting / rebuild PRIOR to do the audit?? That is where
I'm
stuck: how can one provide a total cost prior to doing the audit?
To be honest, and I hope I'm not publicly destroying my reputation ( or
illusion of reputation ), I'm more into doing the audits than the
retrofits.
I don't have the foggiest how long it takes someone to correct the
errors I
point out. Is there any way I can obtain that information?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: khall51 [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 6:25 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
In doing a pile of accessibility reviews in the past few months I've
found
that I can quote an audit at about 1-2 hours per HTML page and that
includes
a reasonable cushion for meetings, familiarizing yourself with the site,
and
anything else involved in the audit process. So a 10 page site would
take an
estimated 20 hours and you may get through it in 10 if you're quick or
the
pages are small. You can write the report as you go if you have a simple
template set up to record the location, type, and recommendations for
the
problems you find.
You should have a good idea of how badly screwed up it is after looking
at a
sampling of the pages. I've noticed that developers usually mess up the
same
things over and over again. Once you know that you should be able to
provide
some better estimates for how long the actual rebuild would take. Until
you
look at things like the layout, quality of existing code, use of proper
attributes, use of templates or a CMS system and other site specific
factors
your estimate for fixing the site could be off by an order of magnitude.
-Kevin Hall
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 5:33 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Thanks Julian,
To be honest, I prefer doing the audit, which details what needs to be
done
and why, and then let "their people" do the grunt work. It avoids the
"ok,
could you change this and that too" and then I'm not responsible for any
goof ups. So, in that case, the total costs are out of my hands.
>From my understanding ( I don't drive ), once the mechanic knows what
is
wrong, he can give a fairly accurate estimate that that it will cost [in
time or money ] to replace the brake pads, align the tires, whatever --
like
there is a rate list. Is there something like that in web
accessibility?
Something I could include in my audit or am I asking for the moon here?
I am thinking of something like:
- include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5 mins
- convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr
- etc
Of course it would still be an ESTIMATE, but it may comfort business
people
having a rough approximation of cost. I am thinking in order to have
business buy into web accessibility, we need to speak business language.
Are we any where close to providing such information? Or is there
another
approach I'm missing?
Cheers,
Glenda
-----Original Message-----
From: julian.rickards [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:28 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
As you said, a mechanic cannot provide an estimate before examining your
car, you can't provide an estimate before you examine their site.
However,
recognize that many mechanics will do a very cursory report on the state
of
your piece of junk (sorry, thinking of my car at the moment) and produce
just a starting estimate for the work. How many times have you gone in
to
get the brake pads changed to be told that your rotors need grinding and
your brake lines are leaking. You could do a cursory audit for free or a
detailed audit for a price.
I personally would recommend that you state the two options and price
out
the full audit (as best you can) and then as one aspect of the audit
report,
provide an estimate of what it will take to make the site accessible. If
you
price the audit and rebuild separately, you can then get paid for the
audit,
whether or not they go for the rebuild. You could offer a discount on
the
audit if they go for the rebuild as an incentive but that is your call.
Secondly, as you may have seen recently, a number of big name sites have
been reworked to use current standard code such as ESPN and Yahoo!.
Recently, Zeldman (Happy Cog) did a rebuild of the Kansas City Chiefs
website which also involved a bit of a redesign too. Your client may not
want just a rebuild but also a redesign which would entail more time
(money)
and effort (money). Therefore, you must spend more time and effort
working
out the details of the rebuild so that a rebuild does not turn into a
redesign (without your consent) or that you are properly paid for the
rebuild and redesign.
Just my 2 cents,
Jules
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
-----Original Message-----
From: glenda [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:07 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: [WebAIM] Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Hi all,
A web developer has offered to pitch my services ( Web accessibility
audits ) to his clients. I've prepared a quote to do an audit for one
of
his client's sites. However he would like to know the TOTAL COST for
making
a site accessible. I understand business needs to know the bottom line
before undertaking a project. But, in my mind, there are determining
factors: level of accessibility adopted [this will be totally voluntary
on
their part], site size and complexity, when accessibility will be
implemented [new site or retrofit an existing site], is training in Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [or equivalent accessible
guidelines]
necessary, etc.
Asking the TOTAL cost before I complete the audit, to me, is like asking
a
car mechanic how much repairs will cost before the mechanic even knows
what
is wrong with the car.
In order to satisfy, as much as possible, the business need to know the
bottom line before proceeding, is there any information out there on the
costs to retrofit a site? For example, adding an ALT takes X Time,
separating structure from presentation takes Y time, etc.
And, of course, I need this information as soon as possible -- like
there is
any other time on my watch!
I anxiously await your enlightening feedback.
Cheers,
Glenda
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/04
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Unclosed list tags
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:45:26 -0600
> So my question is, which is the lesser of two evils? Putting it in a
table,
> or having unclosed tags?
As has been noted by several respondents, closing LIs isn't required
in HTML 4...however, you may want to be careful with any CSS that you
apply to those LIs. I don't have any specific experience with this
with lists, but I seem to remember from my early experiments with CSS
some years back that strange things would happen with unclosed
paragraphs, which have the same "legal" status.
If you can do it, I'd second the suggestion of another poster that you
run the whole thing thru something like Tidy before it goes live.
--
Elaine Nelson
<EMAIL REMOVED>
work: http://www.pierce.ctc.edu/
notWork: http://www.epersonae.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:59:35 -0600
On 07/10/2004, at 10:46 PM, michael.brockington wrote:
> And some of you may remember that I pointed out that the Australian
law
> failed in its primary objective, since the Olympic Games site was
> never made
> fully accessible, hence the second fine.
Yet now we still know exactly where we stand and have a good idea of
what's 'good enough' as far as the law is concerned.
- Next message: Victoria Hamill: "Re: Unclosed list tags"
- Previous message: Raena Armitage: "Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again"
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None
- View all messages in this Thread