E-mail List Archives
Thread: The cost of accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 26 (In chronological order)
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Mon, Oct 04 2010 2:51PM
Subject: The cost of accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
Hi a11y folks,
For a study we're conducting with the Quebec government, I'm trying to evaluate general cost of accessibility when building a website.
Back in 2004, Andy Budd [1] was saying it was around 2%. I tend to agree with him, though my own experience suggests it's more like 2 to 5%.
So, if you had a fully-skilled, fully-experienced team at your disposal (where everyone knows what they're doing), in a website redesign project, what percentage of your budget would you reserve to cover the cost of accessibility?
[1] <http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/01/the_business_case_for_web_accessibility/>;.
Regards,
--
Denis Boudreau
Téléphone : +1 514.730.9168
Courriel : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Oct 04 2010 3:12PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Denis Boudreau wrote:
> For a study we're conducting with the Quebec government, I'm trying
> to evaluate general cost of accessibility when building a website.
Define "accessibility". If it means being accessible to all people, the cost
is infinite. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ignores a considerable part of
mankind.
> Back in 2004, Andy Budd [1] was saying it was around 2%. I tend to
> agree with him, though my own experience suggests it's more like 2 to
> 5%.
83.76% of all percentages have just been made up, and the remaining 17.24%
have been miscalculated. This is hardly an exception, given the (lack of)
citations and references.
> So, if you had a fully-skilled, fully-experienced team at your
> disposal (where everyone knows what they're doing), in a website
> redesign project, what percentage of your budget would you reserve to
> cover the cost of accessibility?
That's a completely different question.
The assumptions are highly unrealistic, but independently of that, I would
reserve 5% if for a commercial site (mainlty because accessibility tends to
promote usability in general). That's just because I cannot imagine myself
defending a higher percentage.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Mon, Oct 04 2010 3:33PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 22:48, Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> For a study we're conducting with the Quebec government, I'm trying to evaluate general cost of accessibility when building a website.
How do you define "website"?
Are you looking at all the work involved in getting a website up and
running? Setting up a publishing platform that is "accessible" from a
technical perspective (templates etc) can be a very small effort.
Building a website that is "accessbile" by some definition can require
a lot of work. Will you hire someone to subtitle your video clips?
Are you looking at accessibility for content producers as well?
I believe it is impossible to calculate a generic cost of
accessibility for a "website".
Regards,
Peter
From: Simius Puer
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 4:51AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ;]
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 5:18AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 6:21AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
If we assume the cost per project runs from 2 to 5%, what would everyone say is covered by that expense?
I realize that we all would like others to focus on the benefits of accessibility rather than the costs of accessibility. However, the truth is that we are wanting people to make a serious commitment to accessibility. If they are going to make that commitment, they need to know what it will cost them to make and keep it. Also, it would be easier to balance the costs of accessibility with the benefits of accessibility if we were able to explain what, if any, monetary benefits there are.
Tim
From: Peter Krantz
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 6:30AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 22:48, Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Back in 2004, Andy Budd [1] was saying it was around 2%. I tend to agree with him, though my own experience suggests it's more like 2 to 5%.
>
And, as a follow up, if you are planning projects and making budget
items on cost of accessibility I assume you are also considering the
benefits of increased accessibility in your ROI.
Regards,
Peter
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 6:54AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Morning,
On 2010-10-04, at 5:08 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Define "accessibility". If it means being accessible to all people, the cost
> is infinite. Anyone who thinks otherwise just ignores a considerable part of
> mankind.
I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. Of course, costs of accessibility can be infinite, but as you can probably guess yourself, in the scope of a web project, it rarely is...
By "accessibility", I mean what most people mean: applying the different guidelines of WCAG 2.0 or any other requirements from WCAG 2.0 inspired government accessibility standards. Therefore, the cost of accessibility is always limited by human or financial resources.
--
Denis Boudreau
Téléphone : +1 514.730.9168
Courriel : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: steven
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 7:21AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Don Mauck
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 7:27AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 7:42AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 7:54AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Just a suggestion, but what if you take the approach that accessibility costs should never be more than 5% of the project cost? As people gain experience that 5% cost will gain you more accessibility. It might not be perfect to begin with, but some accessibility is always better than inaccessibility.
Of course, part of the problem is still that we keep talking about 2-5% without really discussing what kind of work that expense pays for.
From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:00AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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.
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:06AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Peter,
On 2010-10-04, at 5:28 PM, Peter Krantz wrote:
> How do you define "website"?
A group of web pages tagged usgin HTML or XHTML, linked together in a coherent structure, hosted on a web server and consulted using a user agent under the http or https protocol?
What I mean is going the extra mile so the contents we're providing when building that thing is accessible to all (or at least, to the broader audience possible because it's never perfect).
> Are you looking at all the work involved in getting a website up and
> running? Setting up a publishing platform that is "accessible" from a
> technical perspective (templates etc) can be a very small effort.
> Building a website that is "accessbile" by some definition can require
> a lot of work. Will you hire someone to subtitle your video clips?
> Are you looking at accessibility for content producers as well?
Those are all good questions.
The efforts could include subtitling videos, transcripting audio, providing alternative content to flash based elements that could not be made accessible otherwise or any combination thereof.
Of course, the more complex or media rich a project is, the more important the accessibility efforts become. Which is exactly my point.
I tend to believe that my estimates of 2 to 5% are probably good if the "dream team" doing this is experienced, because they'll have the skills to do these things. Accessible scripting (AJaX or whatever) is not so complicated either if your programmer understands the DOM, and knows how to test what he's doing with a screen reader and his keyboard. It's only a matter of understanding how to best use the tools at your disposal.
If the designers know how to use Flash so its compatible with assistive technologies, video producers know how to caption their movies, content producers can export their content in appropriate accessible formats, front-end developers know how to efficiently implement WCAG, etc. then it's safe to assume it's because these people have adapted their practice in order to make it more usable for a broader audience. This includes people with various disabilities that may hinder their capacity to access contents.
Given all these web specialists have adapted their practice, we can assume they've optimized it along the way. Some things might be faster to do than before and others might require a little more time. After all, throwing an additional attribute here and there or testing with a screen reader takes a little more time than not doing it at all.
> I believe it is impossible to calculate a generic cost of
> accessibility for a "website".
I disagree. Everything can be measured, even if the measure is not perfectly accurate.
The efforts required by accessibility, however important or noble they may be, do add up to something. By throwing a ballpark estimate of 2 to 5%, I'm saying a 50k project would require anywhere from 1k to 2.5k for the accessibility adaptations.
It seems to me these figures make sense if you have a skilled team at your disposal, but would necessarily explode if the team had never even thought a blind person could surf the web.
--
Denis Boudreau
Téléphone : +1 514.730.9168
Courriel : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:12AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Tim said:
> Although maybe I should separate the development environment from the user environment.
Actually, Tim, I'm glad you didn't. The fact is, most people who
are asking about the cost of accessibility are asking about the
cost of making things accessible to their end-users, and it
doesn't even occur to them that they might have developers who
also have accessibility needs. What's the cost of
NON-accessibility? Well, for one thing, you lose the potential
productivity of your developers, designers, content providers,
etc., who either don't work for you because you don't have an
accessible environment, or work for you but do it far less
efficiently and productively.
I do understand the need to provide management with some number
for the bottom line, ultimately: "dedicate this much of the
budget to fixing discovered accessibility bugs," or some such.
But if management wants to see the real costs of
non-accessibility, I think it's valuable to point out to them
that their own employees often can't use the site/tool.
I say this from experience. I've been in meetings where
management said "Really, how many resources do you want us to
spend on what's probably a tiny percentage of our users?" And I
sat there in the meeting and said "You mean ME. You are talking
about making a tool that me, your colleague, I can't use. Not a
tiny percentage of your users; SITTING RIGHT HERE." It does make
a difference.
-deborah
From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:18AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Agreed that there are ongoing costs of education however hopefully we do
that now in that we go to conferences, have opportunities of professional
development which are just part of keeping up with changes in our
fields...we would just have professional development not professional
development for accessibility innovations and techniques.
Cheers, Karen
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:24AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Peter,
On 2010-10-05, at 8:25 AM, Peter Krantz wrote:
> And, as a follow up, if you are planning projects and making budget
> items on cost of accessibility I assume you are also considering the
> benefits of increased accessibility in your ROI.
Yes, inevitably, this would eventually be part of the equation.
/Denis
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:30AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Tim,
On 2010-10-05, at 9:48 AM, Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> Just a suggestion, but what if you take the approach that accessibility costs should never be more than 5% of the project cost? As people gain experience that 5% cost will gain you more accessibility. It might not be perfect to begin with, but some accessibility is always better than inaccessibility.
I, for one, am perfectly comfortable with the idea that accessibility could measure up to 10, 20 or even 50% of a budget with any given team.
I've had to deal with such catastrophic situations many times in the past and I expect to do it again in the future. If those costs go through the roof, it's because the skills aren't properly integrated. It usually means training needs or at the very least, some coaching to get things right. As the techniques sink in, those costs diminish. It is our job to help these developers, authors, designers, etc. learn the skills and become more and more proficient at what they do.
I think that for most web development teams an estimate of 5 to 10% is probably more reasonable because they would still be in the process of learning the skills of the trade. But as accessibility becomes a part of the daily routine, it does come down to almost nothing.
> Of course, part of the problem is still that we keep talking about 2-5% without really discussing what kind of work that expense pays for.
For the sake of the discussion, that expense pays for anything related to making your content accessible as per WCAG 2.0.
/Denis
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 8:36AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 11:27AM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
"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
From: catherine
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 3:21PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
On Tue, October 5, 2010 1:26 pm, Steve Green wrote:
> (...) 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.
+1
--
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net
From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 4:33PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi there,
On 2010-10-05, at 1:26 PM, Steve Green wrote:
> 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.
No matter how much I agree with you and how much I would hope this possible, it is totally unrealistic to think most agencies, developers and organizations would be willing to reserve parts of their budgets to get real users to come and test for them when they have developers on the inside claiming they can do the job. Very few would. Only the ones who "get it"...
Nicolas Steenhout had a very interesting blog post on the subject a few days ago[1]. Most of us would agree that no sighted user can come close to a non-sighted user when it comes to testing with a screen reading software. Yes, in the nice world of unicorns and rainbows where I like to go hide regularly, such users should be included at all times. But in this one, most managers wouldn't bother with that kind of information. We can preach and hope to change mentalities over time, but for now, I feel this is not relevant data when trying to come up with a ballpark percentage for the "real" cost of accessibility.
Not in the government or web industry I work in at least...
[1] http://accessibility.net.nz/blog/should-sighted-developers-use-screenreaders-to-test-accessibility/
/Denis
From: Waltenberger, Lon (LNI)
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 6:18PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
US Dept of Justice (they, along with at least the Dept of Education, administer the ADA) expects websites to be tested at least annually by people with disabilities. DoJ responds to complaints and self-initiates inspections through it's Project Civic Access. See http://www.ada.gov/civicfac.htm.
Following are the Web-related excerpts from 2 of these settlements, 1 a city and the other a university:
Settlement with city of Muskegon, Michigan, USA.
FACT SHEET
Settlement Agreement between the United States of America
and the City of Muskegon, Michigan
On September 27, 2010, the Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Muskegon, Michigan, under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and the Department's implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, as well as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Department's implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart G.
The Department of Justice initiated a compliance review of the City of Muskegon in July, 2007, as part of Project Civic Access, a Department initiative to ensure greater access for persons with disabilities to state and local government programs, services, activities, and facilities. An on-site survey of the City of Muskegon's buildings, programs, and services was conducted in August 2008. City of Muskegon staff worked cooperatively with the Department throughout the compliance review process in order to reach an agreement.
The following statement is from
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE CITY OF MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN
UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
DJ 204-38-109
It can be viewed in whole at http://www.ada.gov/muskegon_pca/muskegon_sa.htm.
1. WEB-BASED SERVICES AND PROGRAMS
2. Within 1 month of the effective date of this Agreement, and on subsequent anniversaries of the effective date of this Agreement, the City will distribute to all persons - employees and contractors - who design, develop, maintain, or otherwise have responsibility for content and format of its website(s) or third party websites used by the City (Internet Personnel) the technical assistance document, Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities, which is Attachment H to this Agreement (it is also available at www.ada.gov/websites2.htm).
3. Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, and throughout the life of the Agreement, the City will do the following:
A. Establish, implement, and post online a policy that its web pages will be accessible and create a process for implementation;
B. Ensure that all new and modified web pages and content are accessible;
C. Develop and implement a plan for making existing web content more accessible;
D. Provide a way for online visitors to request accessible information or services by posting a telephone number or e-mail address on its home page; and
E. Periodically (at least annually) enlist people with disabilities to test its pages for ease of use.
And from the settlement with McNeese State University, USA: http://www.ada.gov/mcneese.htm
24. Modifications to the University´s Web Site:
(a) Within 1 month of the effective date of this Agreement, and on subsequent anniversaries of the effective date of this Agreement, the University will distribute to all persons - employees and contractors - who design, develop, maintain, or otherwise have responsibility for content and format of its website, the technical assistance documents, "Accessibility of State and Local Government Websites to People with Disabilities," available at www.ada.gov/websites2.htm), and "ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments," available at http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap5toolkit.htm);
(b) Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, and throughout the life of the Agreement, the University will do the following:
1. Establish, implement, and post online a policy that its web pages will be accessible and create a process for implementation;
2. Ensure that all new and modified web pages and content are accessible;
3. Develop and implement a plan for making existing web content more accessible;
4. Provide a way for online visitors to request accessible information or services by posting a telephone number or e-mail address on its home page; and
5. Periodically (at least annually) enlist people with disabilities to test its pages for ease of use.
(c) By no later than six months after the effective date of this Agreement, the University shall display on its website information to assist individuals with disabilities to identify, among other things, accessible routes through the University campus, accessible parking areas, accessible entrances to buildings, and accessible programs, services, and activities within buildings. The University shall also display detailed information regarding nonstructural alternative measures implemented, on an interim or final basis, to ensure individuals with disabilities access to programs, services, and activities. The University´s website shall be updated regularly to reflect newly added or renovated accessible features of the campus.
From: Iza Bartosiewicz
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 7:00PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Denis,
Looks like you've started a very interesting discussion! :)
It may be worth getting in touch with Mike Davies [1], who worked on redevelopment of Legal & General (UK) website. That site became 'famous' few years ago for generating a considerable ROI from accessibility improvements, so Mike should know about the costs involved in making this happen.
His presentation about this project [2] might be of interest to you too. One thing that caught my eye was his statement that accessibility improvements focussed 'Particularly [on] the use of simple language' (the good old checkpoint 14.1), with great benefits. It is unfortunate then that WCAG 2.0 made this requirement optional. I brought this up, because any 'fully-skilled and experienced' team should include web developers as well as web writers (as Dey Alexander aptly put it: "Don't forget the 'C' in WCAG" [3]).
The Legal & General website project was also discussed by MicroAngelo [4] and on Accessify Forum [5].
Are you also considering the ongoing costs of maintaining accessible website?
[1] http://www.isolani.co.uk/
[2] http://www.isolani.co.uk/presentations/wsg/wsg-webaccessibility.pdf
[3] http://www.deyalexander.com.au/blog/2009/12/a-resolution-for-the-new-year-dont-forget-the-c-in-wcag/
[4] http://www.microangelo.co.uk/2006/apr/news/pas78.php
[5] http://www.accessifyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4798
cheers
Iza Bartosiewicz
www.linkedin.com/in/izabartosiewicz
twitter.com/mr0wka18
>>> Denis Boudreau < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 05/10/10 7:48 >>>
Hi a11y folks,
For a study we're conducting with the Quebec government, I'm trying to evaluate general cost of accessibility when building a website.
Back in 2004, Andy Budd [1] was saying it was around 2%. I tend to agree with him, though my own experience suggests it's more like 2 to 5%.
So, if you had a fully-skilled, fully-experienced team at your disposal (where everyone knows what they're doing), in a website redesign project, what percentage of your budget would you reserve to cover the cost of accessibility?
[1] <http://www.andybudd.com/archives/2004/01/the_business_case_for_web_accessibility/>;.
Regards,
--
Denis Boudreau
Téléphone : +1 514.730.9168
Courriel : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 9:24PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Interesting to note that the U.S. Department of Justice's Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (A.N.P.R. dated July 23, 2010,
http://www.ada.gov/anprm2010/web%20anprm_2010.htm ) is asking for public
comments on all facets of implementation of accessibility standards,
including:
-- Costs and benefits of website regulations (section E.)
-- Impact on small entities that maintain websites (section F.)
To clarify, Section 508 covers only federal information and technology
(including products and services provided to the federal government), but
not the private sector. http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/brochure.htm
DOJ's proposed rule will cover private section information technology. So
between the 2 sets of regulations, pretty much everything will need to be
accessible in the U.S., private, federal government and local/state
governments.
Since most of these regulations and guidelines have yet to be fully enacted,
it certainly will keep us all on our toes as they are rolled out over the
next year or two.
--Bevi Chagnon
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
Bevi Chagnon | PubCom | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | 301-585-8805
Government publishing specialists, trainers, consultants | print, press,
web, Acrobat PDF & 508
Online at the blog: It's 2010. Where's your career heading?
www.pubcom.com/newsletter
From: Bevi Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2010 9:42PM
Subject: Re: The cost of accessibility
← Previous message | No next message
I often wonder if a two-pronged approached to accessibility might give the
best results for all stakeholders, both A.T. users and those of us who
develop information technology products (websites, office documents, PDFs,
multimedia, etc.).
First prong is, of course, what we discuss here: making our websites and
other information accessible to A.T. users.
But what if government grants or other funding could go directly to A.T.
users to subsidize their technologies?
As a teacher and developer with many clients, family members, and friends
with various disabilities, I run into 2 situations that undermine my best
efforts to make my products accessible:
1) Most of the disabled people I know do not have the money to keep their
software and hardware A.T. up to date, and therefore, don't have the best
tools for their needs.
2) Most of them also haven't had sufficient training in how to use the A.T.
that they do have, so they end up stumbling through a website that actually
is accessible.
Here in the U.S., for example, our Medicare program subsidizes wheelchairs
and motorized scooters for our disabled citizens.
Why can't we have a similar program of subsidies for computer A.T. too? That
sure would make my developer life a lot easier! <grin>
--Bevi Chagnon
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :
Bevi Chagnon | PubCom | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | 301-585-8805
Government publishing specialists, trainers, consultants | print, press,
web, Acrobat PDF & 508
Online at the blog: It's 2010. Where's your career heading?
www.pubcom.com/newsletter