E-mail List Archives
Thread: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
Number of posts in this thread: 20 (In chronological order)
From: Glenda
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2004 2:06PM
Subject: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
No previous message | Next message →
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
From: julian.rickards
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2004 2:32PM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Glenda
Date: Tue, Oct 05 2004 3:32PM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 2:51AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
>
> Of course it would still be an ESTIMATE, but it may comfort business
> people
> having a rough approximation of cost.
It might be useful for you to list it that way, but I wouldn't
recommend listing those for clients because it's a lot of jargon they
probably don't care about. A simple estimate of time would probably be
better.
From: Jens Meiert
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 3:08AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
> > - include ALT tags @ 30seconds / ALT * 10 = 5 mins
> > - convert layout table to CSS @ .75hr/"simple" table = 1.5hr
> > - etc
It depends, but a web standards and accessibility specialist (or at least
someone who's experienced in this matter) will generally need less time to
realize a standard compliant and accessible site -- and will thus be less
expensive.
I don't know where these rumors come from that higher quality inevitably
means higher costs -- yeah, you'll need to pay more for this specialist, but
you'll get even more (and thus save good money). And I'm not yet taking into
account increased credibility (e.g., due to consistency reasons) and an
improved user experience (e.g., due to better usability).
Jens.
--
Jens Meiert
Interface Architect (IxD)
http://meiert.com/
From: Chris Heilmann
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 3:48AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
>
> 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/
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 7:06AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
Some things like Alt tags I believe are required to make the code validate,
it might be useful to include a paragraph about that and the fact that
things like search engines used alt tags and other meta tags for placment.
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: John Gugerty
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 7:18AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
From 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 ADDRESS 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
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 7:29AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 7:35AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
The "problem" with many accessibility "features" is that they are subjective
which is why many automated accessibility checkers fail. They can determine
that the alt attribute is missing but they can determine what to insert in
an alt attribute: empty, short description, or long description (thus
requiring instead the longdesc attribute or a [D] link). Therefore, it is
difficult to say what is needed for the alt attribute: if all fit into the
empty-alt category, you job is easy but if each requires consideration as to
what is shown and how to describe it, 30 seconds may run into 2 minutes or
more.
Maybe you could audit one page (perhaps for free) and then provide them a
cost per page. If the pages are similar, then you could easily meet your
cost. You must evaluate the job before you provide them a quote just a
mechanic does not take my word on what is wrong with the car.
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
From: julian.rickards
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 7:40AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
Oops, typo.
What I meant to say was automated accessibility checkers CANNOT determine
what to insert in an alt attribute, neither can they determine if the
current alt of "Photo of a dog" is appropriate for your "Drawing of a fish".
This is why subjective testing must be employed.
-----------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
A/Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publication Services Section,
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines,
Vox: 705-670-5608 / Fax: 705-670-5960
From: Glenda
Date: Wed, Oct 06 2004 10:42AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
Mike,
Points like that would definitely be in my report.
Thanks,
Glenda
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 12:17AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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 ADDRESS 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 ADDRESS 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
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 12:20AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 12:35AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 1:22AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 5:50AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: julian.rickards
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Hall, Kevin (K.M.)
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 8:53AM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Raena Armitage
Date: Thu, Oct 07 2004 8:59PM
Subject: Re: Cost of Web accessibility, yet again
← Previous message | No next message
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.