E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 28 (In chronological order)

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 3:03PM
Subject: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →

A couple of weeks ago on the WebAIM list, I made an off-the-cuff
remark about how I should charge more for the work I do related to
web accessibility. I wasn't really serious, but some folks piped
up anyway to show appreciation to me, and I graciously accept it.

Thinking on the matter further, though, has got me thinking about
the commercialization of web accessibility -- about increasing moves
away from simple grass-roots help and toward the idea of web
accessibilty as a business model.

Much of the newfound profitability of web accessibility stems
directly from the U.S. government's Section 508 requirements for
accessibility -- a legislative remedy that I've both praised as
excellent in theory and criticized as poor in implementation.
One major effect of 508 has been to carve out new niche markets
which didn't exist before, in terms of services and support for
accesible web design.

The effects of this are debatable -- there have been a number of
moves by for-profit and non-profit groups alike to "cash in" on
these new market niches. This may not be a bad thing, as for years
web accessibility was _not_ a hot, "sexy" item and a number of
people and companies, myself included, have not made nearly the
money that would normally be coming to us if we'd give up this
accessibility cause and spend our time in the pursuit of
profit.

On the other hand, there's questions as to the changing nature of
the field and whether or not that will have positive implications
on the end users of the Internet who may have disabilities.

Here's some of the things I'm thinking about today:

* CAST's Bobby program is no longer free. The web version has
no charge associated with it, but the downloadable, locally
run program (for checking mass numbers of pages, pages behind
a firewall, or those which aren't live yet) is now $99. (Or
far more for a site license.)

* The Brainbench test on accessibility is no longer free either;
it's now $20 or so, if you want to test your knowledge of
web accessibility and certify it with an online test.

* My own web accessibility online course -- running since 1998 --
has been joined by a number of other online courses. WebAIM,
EASI, WOW. All of these have a higher price point than my
seven-week course by about a factor of 3 to 10; perhaps I need
to up rates to stay competitive.

* Macromedia has recently put out a nice package of materials
on accessibility -- but to get it, apparently you need to
buy a Macromedia product.

* Jakob Nielsen's done an accessibility and usability study;
you can buy it for about $200 in PDF format. The WAI idea of
cooperative, consensus-based creation of accessibility
guidelines doesn't seem to be particularly proftiable.

* Books are in production on web accessibility, including books
written by members of the W3C's working group. Joe Clark
is the most obvious example; his blog has mentioned great
advances in figuring out how to make web sites accessible.
But you won't read about them in WCAG 2.0 -- you'll need to
buy Joe's book.

* A number of new companies -- or perhaps old companies with new
marketing budgets -- have sprung up to offer accessibility
consulting and evaluation services at prices of dozens of
thousands of dollars or more.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not stating the above as items which
should (or should not) be criticized. I'm looking at them as part
of a bigger picture, and I'm asking the question of whether or not
this will have a net positive effect.

Many of the things listed are indicative of a greater awareness
of web accessibility, and that's something I and others have been
working on for a long time. The increase in the number of
training options, the corporate attention to the issue, the
involvement of a major usability "celebrity" in championing
accessibility, the greater willingness of publishers to take
a chance on an accessibility book -- these are all welcome
changes for the better.

But other things need to be considered as well, such as the
continuing role of the W3C in these events, the possibility of
"profiteering" (if that's even a bad thing), the increasing
expense to the independent web designer, and so on. I'm not
sure if these questions are currently being raised, and I'm
not entirely sure which forum is appropriate for raising them
(and thus the fact that you may see this posted several
places).

Will we see, for example, a "proprietization" of web accessibility
techniques? Will Macromedia or Kynn Bartlett or Joe Clark or
anyone else decide that it's not worth their time to work on
consensus-based projects but instead to create copyrighted materials?
Will instructors of online classes realize that they can make more
money doing consulting instead of training other consultants who
then get the lucrative gigs? Will A-Prompt or the W3C Validator
become victims of their own success and decide to start charging
since Bobby did?

I don't think people are getting rich in droves off this, by
the way. I don't imagine CAST bigwigs sitting back cackling
with glee, or Joe Clark buying a huge mansion with the advances
on his hard work. And I wouldn't even object if it were
happening -- partly because I think there are a number of people
who have done great work who have been financially UNrewarded for
their efforts, and partially out of pure self-interest greed.
Hey, I'd love for my chosen field of interest to suddenly become
the path to financial freedom!

A better explanation is that this is "web accessibility growing up",
at least a little bit. Of new forces that weren't at work several
years ago now coming to the fore, and with those, we need to look
at existing processes and see how they're being changed. It's
time to discuss the role of the W3C in the future of web
accessibility. It's time to discuss the corporate and
government interests. It's time to re-evaluate what we're doing
and where things are going, and for it's time for some of us to
make clearer plans and provide vision.

This rambled on a bit more than I thought it would. While some of
it may be generated by my ongoing state of unemployment (and thus
opportunity and motive to consider the larger picture), I believe
these are topics that would be good for discussion among people
who share the same goal of improving accessibility of the web
for everyone.

What do you think?

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Paul Bohman
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 4:27PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

All of your points are good ones, Kynn, and interesting. In a way, the
increased potential for making a profit from Web accessibility issues is
indicative of the "coming of age" of the idea.

Certain aspects of web accessibility are a good fit for commercialization.
Training, consulting, and design services, for example. Software is another
good example. Other things are not as good a fit. Web accessibility
standards, for example, are still best arrived at by consensus. There is
little reason to try to commercialize the process of standard-setting at
this point--at least none that I can think of.

Personally, I don't see web accessibility as a very enticing means to
financial success. I think that there will be some people and some companies
that make money off of it--maybe quite a bit of money, but I think that most
people will make only a modest amount, if any, in this field. I could be
wrong, but that is just an impression that I have. There are certainly many
avenues to explore, and many niches to fill, but most of the advances will
be made by smaller groups, without too strong of a profit motive, I think.
It doesn't have to be that way, but that is how I see things going in the
near future.

For the most part, WebAIM offers free information to anyone who wants it.
"Come to our Web site and get it" -- that is our approach (and, by the way,
our site has been in the process of a total redesign for some time now, with
more expanded information and resources, but I have to be patient and wait
until all the pieces are together before letting everyone else see it,
unfortunately)... But we have also offered classes (for university credit,
which explains the price difference, Kynn :-) -- we actually don't make much
in the process) and consulting services for a fee. Are we getting rich in
the process? Hardly. It's just a matter of possessing a certain expertise,
and making it worth our time to train others. The information on our site is
still free, even if our consulting services are not.

Perhaps it is only through commercialization that more significant advances
can be made. Maybe we should be welcoming the infiltration of money into the
system. Maybe by stepping away from the "academic" approach that everyone
has been taking, and venturing into the "customer satisfaction" approach, we
will finally see more practical results, and see them more quickly.

At the same time, profiteering has the tendency to simplify and marginalize
the needs of minority interests, because such interests do not always
satisfy the need for profit. Only time will tell how things play out here.

Maybe we're just waiting for the right idea to pursue. As with any business
venture, it takes the right idea, the right people, the best marketing, and
solid determination.

So much for my random thoughts.

Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu






-

From: Ricci, Mark
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 4:57PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

I found Kynn's email very interesting. I forwarded it on to the person in
charge of Business Development to get his take on the discussion. He asked
me to submit his thoughts on the subject. His contact info is available at
the bottom of the email.

Here goes:

I wish to respond to Kynn Bartlett's email regarding "The Commercialization
of Web Accessibility". In doing this, it is hard not to sound like a paid
advertisement, only fueling the entire debate, but here goes...

VITAC is a division of my company and started off in the Closed-Captioning
business on broadcast television. VITAC stands for VITal ACcess. VITAC is
a for profit company, and got its start when there were no FCC requirements
for captioning. When one had to knock on doors and explain to ABC, CBS and
NBC why they should be spending money to do this when they weren't forced
to. Not an easy sell, right?

Well, now we have requirements for captioning, with step-ups for compliance
every year. Next year the Big3 (plus FOX, UPN, WB, ESPN, CNN, etc.)
networks will be required to provide captioning for a minimum of 9 hours a
day. The requirements don't speak to quality, just that you need them.
VITAC pushes quality because of its importance to the 25 million people out
there that count on the captions for information, entertainment and a
connection to the world. Did I mention that we are also a for profit
company?

508 truly creates new opportunities, and yes, has limitations. But the
bottom line is the information will be accessible as it was intended... to
all. We are now performing LIVE Internet captioning, receiving tremendous
feed-back. A by-product of this new accessibility on the internet is a new
opportunity to aid in the linking of speech with the text. We can have
created a text-based search that will bring you to the audio/video
information you need. We are doing that now. Everyone benefits for this
type of accessibility.

Thank you for your time.

Larry Schwartz
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use,
disclosure or distribution by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply and destroy all copies of the original message.
Thank you.

WordWave, Capturing the Power of the Spoken Word
http://www.wordwave.com




-

From: Susan
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 5:32PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Be thankful the change in the law has increased market awareness about
accessibility. OK other people have entered the market but nothing can
take away Kynn's experience and enthusiasm can it? That's the first
thing I would suggest was put in the strengths column if he did an
examination of the strengths weaknesses opportunities and threats of his
current situation.

It's great doing things in theory but doing them in practise is
something else. Anyone can set themselves up as an expert in something
and appear to others as though they know what they are talking about
when really they know hardly anything. For example during January last
year I went off on a complete bunny trail while doing an assignment for
uni. I ended up writing a 40 page book on accessibility. It had 5
sections
Section 1 - why bother (covering legal requirements in the UK)
Section 2 - an overview of why different groups need help and what sort
of help that is likely to be
Section 3 - checking a site for accessibility
Section 4 - practical things to do to make a site more accessible
Section 5 - where can I find out more
I was going to hand it in as part of the assignment but then realised
that if I did that I would lose control of what I had done.

I am definitely no expert and certainly don't have a lot of experience
but because of what I have read I have been able to put together
something that is readable. In fact if truth be known I suspect some
people would recognise certain passages as whole chunks of text were
literally copied and pasted from websites directly into Word.

I had not learnt to use HTML at that point so I hardly knew what all
these web sites were talking about when they gave hints and tips. It
makes a lot more sense now I have got a better idea how to use HTML.

I am now in a quandary I have something that I could use to supplement
my income so that I could pay off my debts. What do I do with it? I have
not exactly written every word myself although I have edited it all
together so can I truly claim authorship and therefore take all the
profits should I sell copies. But can I afford to give it away to people
that I come across who will find it useful? On the other hand if people
find it useful do I have the right to keep it to myself?

At the moment I can print off 40 pages and bind them with a clear front
cover, white back cover and a black comb so they look reasonably
professional. What about having it available to download and either
giving it away or if it could be organised charging a fee? I have been
exploring this possibility with other things I have written which have
fewer copyright issues so I know it is possible. Someone else gets quite
a chunk of the cash generated but it's possible.

The thing about charging a fee is that it can give you a greater sense
of worth in that people are actually buying what you have created. I
suspect this has something to do with Kynn's situation as I got a sense
that he was working hard and yet his work was not being valued in
monetary terms while he sees others being rewarded. On the other hand
there are other benefits to be had apart from financial gain but of
course they do not pay the bills. I for one have appreciated having
access to an affordable course in accessibility and indeed could never
have done it if it was much more expensive.

I am no expert at accessibility or developing web sites In fact I would
call myself a novice who is improving. However, I have research and
writing skills which make it easier for me to find out things and write
them up than many other people.

I read Kynn's message and thought what on earth do I do now? I don't
like stepping on toes although I am often more honest than tactful.

Any sensible suggestions or advice on any of this message (or was it a
book) will be gratefully received.

Susan






-

From: Holly Marie
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 5:43PM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

A Few thoughts Susan.

IT may be possible to take something like this and present it in a hands
on tutorial using multimedia.
Now I know that is not fully accessible to others with screen readers
only, but it is more than accessible, understandable and usable to even
larger populations to see and have and hear how it is done. It makes
more sense to see how it works than to read about it, to many people.

Also publish the text only version on the side. Think of Flash, Director
or other interactive multimedia and market it to colleges. I have been
thinking about this one myself, and also a tandem or triad of web sites,
that I purchased over a year ago.

able2access.com
able2access.org
able2access.net
[they are not live yet, but I have been reading and collecting
information on this topic And assisstive and augmentative communication
technology for years] I hope to be teaching a course on this in a
community college Multimedia Communications Department as a special
topic, too.

there is nothing wrong with making money off of a skill that you have,
knowledge you have, and ability you have to connect and reasearch a
topic and then fine tune a delivery to others.

It is helpful, no need to feel guilty and where were all these web
sites, corporations, and even web designers that do not know going to
get help? And where is it stated they need to get help for free?

holly
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'WebAIM forum'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility


> Be thankful the change in the law has increased market awareness about
> accessibility. OK other people have entered the market but nothing can
> take away Kynn's experience and enthusiasm can it? That's the first
> thing I would suggest was put in the strengths column if he did an
> examination of the strengths weaknesses opportunities and threats of
his
> current situation.
>
> It's great doing things in theory but doing them in practise is
> something else. Anyone can set themselves up as an expert in something
> and appear to others as though they know what they are talking about
> when really they know hardly anything. For example during January last
> year I went off on a complete bunny trail while doing an assignment
for
> uni. I ended up writing a 40 page book on accessibility. It had 5
> sections
> Section 1 - why bother (covering legal requirements in the UK)
> Section 2 - an overview of why different groups need help and what
sort
> of help that is likely to be
> Section 3 - checking a site for accessibility
> Section 4 - practical things to do to make a site more accessible
> Section 5 - where can I find out more
> I was going to hand it in as part of the assignment but then realised
> that if I did that I would lose control of what I had done.
>
> I am definitely no expert and certainly don't have a lot of experience
> but because of what I have read I have been able to put together
> something that is readable. In fact if truth be known I suspect some
> people would recognise certain passages as whole chunks of text were
> literally copied and pasted from websites directly into Word.
>
> I had not learnt to use HTML at that point so I hardly knew what all
> these web sites were talking about when they gave hints and tips. It
> makes a lot more sense now I have got a better idea how to use HTML.
>
> I am now in a quandary I have something that I could use to supplement
> my income so that I could pay off my debts. What do I do with it? I
have
> not exactly written every word myself although I have edited it all
> together so can I truly claim authorship and therefore take all the
> profits should I sell copies. But can I afford to give it away to
people
> that I come across who will find it useful? On the other hand if
people
> find it useful do I have the right to keep it to myself?
>
> At the moment I can print off 40 pages and bind them with a clear
front
> cover, white back cover and a black comb so they look reasonably
> professional. What about having it available to download and either
> giving it away or if it could be organised charging a fee? I have been
> exploring this possibility with other things I have written which have
> fewer copyright issues so I know it is possible. Someone else gets
quite
> a chunk of the cash generated but it's possible.
>
> The thing about charging a fee is that it can give you a greater sense
> of worth in that people are actually buying what you have created. I
> suspect this has something to do with Kynn's situation as I got a
sense
> that he was working hard and yet his work was not being valued in
> monetary terms while he sees others being rewarded. On the other hand
> there are other benefits to be had apart from financial gain but of
> course they do not pay the bills. I for one have appreciated having
> access to an affordable course in accessibility and indeed could never
> have done it if it was much more expensive.
>
> I am no expert at accessibility or developing web sites In fact I
would
> call myself a novice who is improving. However, I have research and
> writing skills which make it easier for me to find out things and
write
> them up than many other people.
>
> I read Kynn's message and thought what on earth do I do now? I don't
> like stepping on toes although I am often more honest than tactful.
>
> Any sensible suggestions or advice on any of this message (or was it a
> book) will be gratefully received.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>




-

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 5:58PM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

At 5:38 PM -0600 12/18/01, Holly Marie wrote:
>It is helpful, no need to feel guilty and where were all these web
>sites, corporations, and even web designers that do not know going to
>get help? And where is it stated they need to get help for free?

I'm not necessarily stating my own views here. I'm playing devil's
advocate now:

If they don't get it for free, then the only sites which will
be accessible are those which have chosen to pay for it. The
problem results in that a failure to pay doesn't necessarily
hurt the companies -- it hurts the users with disabilities.
The higher the price tag on accessibility support material,
the fewer people benefit it. For example, many large
corporations may have been willing to use Bobby before on
their sites, but not if they have to pay a site license
fee. Fewer people using Bobby (and no free equivalent for
it) can lead to generally less accessible sites.

Therefore, it is to the advantage of people with disabilities
that information accessibility remain no-charge -- it's why
WCAG guidelines can have a larger impact than Mr. Nielsen's
$190 report.

Thoughts on this? I don't believe it all myself, and as an author,
I'd certainly like to be able to sell books. But I think it is a
necessary point to continue. If I wrote a book on accessibility,
I might sell some copies and that would be a good thing. However,
if I created a free web site and PDF with the same content, more
people would get it. But I would have less motive to do this,
because it would be, effectively, money out of my own pocket.

And thus the businessman is in necessary conflict with the
activist. Businessmen want to monetize accessibility because,
as they see it, they can make money out of it _and_ by making
money they can guarantee the availability and maintenance of
the resource, and even develop further resources. The activist
looks primarily at the good that's done for people in need, and
sometimes has to make compromises for practicality's sake,
recognizing that content won't get created if it means too much
personal sacrifice.

What do you think?

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Adrian Howard
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 6:41PM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

on 18/12/01 8:49 pm, Kynn Bartlett at = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
[snip]
> Thinking on the matter further, though, has got me thinking about
> the commercialization of web accessibility -- about increasing moves
> away from simple grass-roots help and toward the idea of web
> accessibilty as a business model.
[snip]

I've had similar feelings on the rise in awareness of accessibility issues.
It's still a bit of a surprise when clients bring the subject up --- rather
that the other way around!

Overall I think the big plus of people actually considering accessibility
outweigh the problems that the increased awareness brings.... that said, a
few more negatives for the list:

a) Oversold technical solutions: I'm sure that I'm not the only person who
has had to explain that the new all-singing-all-dancing wonder widget
will *not* solve all accessibility issues for only $9.95!

b) Misconceptions: People thinking that accessibility is only about totally
blind users, or audio browsers, or whatever. I think I could probably
write a top-ten :-)

c) Cowboys. Design companies are adding the word "accessibility" to their
portfolio of buzzword-compliant terms and don't know what they're
talking about.... with all the risks of devaluing the term that this
brings.

Oversold technical solutions don't really worry me. That's just life if you
spend your time in a technical field.

However, the combination of cowboys and misconceptions does worry me a
little. Together they can quickly lead to the situation where people
understand accessibility to mean "add ALT text to all images" or something
similar. Then you suddenly have to start re-educating people, rather than
just educating them, and I find the former a lot harder to accomplish.

Hopefully that made some sort of vague sense...

Adrian
- --
e. = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , t. 01929 550720, f. 0870 131 3033



-

From: Adrian Howard
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 7:01PM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Another good side effect that I've noticed... and one not directly to do
with accessibility so feel free to kill the thread.

I've found that once an organisation has started taking accessibility issues
seriously, they suddenly start taking more general issues of usability and
information management more seriously too.

After dealing with the problems that one section of their audience is having
they suddenly realise that it might be a good idea to do this for everybody!

Accessibility seems to provide a neat entry-point into a more user-centric
mindset. Quite why I'm not sure.

A good thing, but slightly weird.

Adrian
- --
e. = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , t. 01929 550720, f. 0870 131 3033



-

From: Sophie Latulippe
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 2:30AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this list. I think the best way to commercialize it is by making
it part of a list of web-related or media-related services.

Another way is to find the advantages of accessibility for non-disabled
persons. There has to be some...
One used to be slow connections, i. e browsing faster when images are off.

I think we might even use the term useability in stead of accessibility.
People have to find ways to show accessibility doesn't benifit a minority
(i.e. persons with disabilities) but other people has well. People must feel
that it is something that they are expected to do, but something that
enriches users experience and make it more fun!

If everybody on this list could find at least one way onm how web/media
accessibility can be an advantage for non-disabled people, we might be on
our way to market it more easilly..

It makes me think of the wheelchair accessible ramps which are also useful
for baby carriages, suitcases with wheels, and... why not... kids in
rollerblades!!!



Sophie Latulippe
1625 de Maisonneuve West #1210
Montreal, Qc, H3H 2N4
Canada
T#233#l#233#phone: (514) 989-8117
T#233#l#233#copieur (514) 989-8810
email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldis largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com



-

From: Peter Van Dijck
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 3:59AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

| And thus the businessman is in necessary conflict with the
| activist.

Not necessarily so.

The businessman may realise that, if he doesn't charge sufficiently for his
services, the future of the resource/consulting/information/research may be
at stake. He will realise that companies who pay for a report may be much
more inclined to use it than companies who download it for free. He also may
realise that he can essentially provide all the information for free, AND
provide the information in a form where people will pay money for it, be it
through consulting, downloadable reports (do you think the Nielsen reports
reveal much that is not available from his site or from online resources
anyway, for free?), ...

So that is how the apparent conflict can be resolved, I believe. By
providing information and research for free, you not only help the sites
without money, but also position yourself as expert. Which in turns lets you
charge money for the same information (differently packaged, more detailed
maybe) and services, because people pay money for the TRUST, the authority,
not the actual information. They pay you money so they don't have to think
it our for themselves, basically. You provide an EASY way for them to be
accessible, for money.

Hope that made sense.
Peter



-

From: Michael Goddard
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 8:38AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

As an individual who has a disability and a career within the Web
Development and Design field, my viewpoint is that the more commercialized
that accessibility gets, the sharper the "double-edge sword" gets. What I
mean by this is that there are going to be pros and cons regarding this and
those pros and cons will begin to make stronger impacts upon people's
decisions in the use of accessibility.

Pros:
1) Increased awareness of accessibility issues to larget audiences.
2) With the monies earned, the possibility of accessiblility features being
researched and new technologies created.

Cons:
1) Cost becomes too high for accessibility tools to be used and company's
therefore not using the necessary tools. This is my dilemma in regards to
training.
2) Accessibility should be used throughout the world, however only the U.S.,
Canada and U.K have/or implementing some type of accessibility laws
"requiring" in a limited way that accessibility must be met. (If I forgot a
country I apologize). This in turns creates an "unfair" playing field in my
opinion. So for example, Sony Inc. is a Japanese company and is not bound
by any law to create accessible content, so they don't have to worry nor
spend money for accessiblility issues on their web sites, however Microsoft
is an American company that is bound by American law to provide
accessiblility on their web sites so they have to spend and worry about
accessiblility issues....(NOTE: this is an example to clarify the point!)

I am sure there are many more pros and cons however these are the main two
that stick in my mind the most. Plus another fear that I have in regards to
the commercialization of accessibility ( I am not against making money just
cautious about the "results" regarding this - i.e causing prices to increase
and tools, once being free like Bobby, now having to be bought for usage )
is that people tend to forget that I or anyone else witha disability have
the right to be able to access public information for free as everyone else.

Why should I pay money so I can get closed captioning on a video when a
"normal" person can view the same video for free. I have a right to the
same information as anyone else but I have to 'pay' for it.

I see this happening just for the fact that companies will have to find some
way to pay for the services that they 'had' to 'pay' for in order to make
the video accessible. And those costs will trickle down to the users of
that service.

Those are my thoughts, take them in anyway you like them.

Michael




-

From: Carol Foster
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 8:56AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Ah it's the whole capitalist dilemma really, or something like that.
Anyway, I think there is a middle ground between everything being free and
$190 PDF's. I would love to see Jakob Neilsen's report and Kynn's book
available at bookish prices, say $35 give or take, either as books or
PDF's or whatever.

Carol

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 5:38 PM -0600 12/18/01, Holly Marie wrote:
> >It is helpful, no need to feel guilty and where were all these web
> >sites, corporations, and even web designers that do not know going to
> >get help? And where is it stated they need to get help for free?
>
> I'm not necessarily stating my own views here. I'm playing devil's
> advocate now:
>
> If they don't get it for free, then the only sites which will
> be accessible are those which have chosen to pay for it. The
> problem results in that a failure to pay doesn't necessarily
> hurt the companies -- it hurts the users with disabilities.
> The higher the price tag on accessibility support material,
> the fewer people benefit it. For example, many large
> corporations may have been willing to use Bobby before on
> their sites, but not if they have to pay a site license
> fee. Fewer people using Bobby (and no free equivalent for
> it) can lead to generally less accessible sites.
>
> Therefore, it is to the advantage of people with disabilities
> that information accessibility remain no-charge -- it's why
> WCAG guidelines can have a larger impact than Mr. Nielsen's
> $190 report.
>
> Thoughts on this? I don't believe it all myself, and as an author,
> I'd certainly like to be able to sell books. But I think it is a
> necessary point to continue. If I wrote a book on accessibility,
> I might sell some copies and that would be a good thing. However,
> if I created a free web site and PDF with the same content, more
> people would get it. But I would have less motive to do this,
> because it would be, effectively, money out of my own pocket.
>
> And thus the businessman is in necessary conflict with the
> activist. Businessmen want to monetize accessibility because,
> as they see it, they can make money out of it _and_ by making
> money they can guarantee the availability and maintenance of
> the resource, and even develop further resources. The activist
> looks primarily at the good that's done for people in need, and
> sometimes has to make compromises for practicality's sake,
> recognizing that content won't get created if it means too much
> personal sacrifice.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --Kynn
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
> Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
> January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
>
> ---
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

- --
Carol Foster, Web Developer
Internet Publishing Group, Information Technology Services
University of Massachusetts, President's Office
(413) 587-2130
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.umass-its.net/ipg
- --




-

From: Holly Marie
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 9:35AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Cost is an unfortunate issue, but a reality.... you brought up some good
points.

examples...of some reality, cost goes directly to the user.

[1] normal telephone for a household vs. a special telephone for the
Deaf
[2] computer and peripherals for normal use vs. computers with switches,
touch windows or touch monitors(used by general public also),
specialized keyboards(cost more $$$), augmentative communication
devices($$$), and other assisstive technology(more $$$)

Captioning of media will cost extra, and I am not so sure that a company
will charge for a captioned view but will have to find some creative way
to make up that money they had to pay in order to display or offer that
service. Because it costs more... SMIL and MAGpie(sp?) are technologies
that take specialized people, who qualify to get paid for those
services. CopyWriters, who write up narratives or descriptions offer an
additional service which will have to be paid for, and those costs may
be divided out to all? or supported via good marketing and ad
campaigning, grants or donations, or support and sponsorship via other
corporations or individuals.

These items need to cost more, hard as it is to realize, People, labor
and hours had to go into making such devices or technology and
somewhere, someone has to be paying for these things. There are not
enough people out there to make things of these nature work for free
time and effort.

Companies that put up special bars, retrofit restrooms, offer up
specialized services and help, pay more for these items, and many
probably project and and divide that cost along the total product or
service price. They had to pay more to become more accessible, and
someone else or everyone else will be paying for this.

I understand the frustration and also the cost prohibitive nature of
specialized equipment, devices, and technology. I have an adult daughter
dependent, who will always be one, and the costs are unreal, often not
covered by insurance, and definitely not yet covered by any support
services or governmental help out there. Both the govt and supportive
system set up is very lacking in my area, and not bound to be growing in
leaps and bounds anytime soon, either. Cost cutting is happening on
these support levels, not increasing.

So, her cost to communicate, was well over 6,000 US dollars with a
device that was not covered and still in limbo or may have run out of
time to be covered. Support services to use this technology were weak
and poor in the public school system, and private support is cost
prohibitive, with insurance support missing.

There are no easy answers, however I cannot say that every company has
to supply every user with everything possible, without passing that cost
on somehow.

Some way or another, we will all be paying these costs, and others that
need even more specialized help or tools will paying those costs. Many
of the accessibility changes in the area of web designing and code can
be made with little cost increases wwhen someone is coding to current
guidelines, and may actually offer companies designing web sites, added
cost cutting on project time and labor when they hire those that can
code to standards. Retrofitting older sites is another story, and that
will cost these companies to rewrite or fix these sites, either in house
labor or hiring out for specialized or knowledgeable developers and
designers. There are many sites up now that will provide these services
and or software packages for companies to fix their sites or code.

holly

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Goddard"

> As an individual who has a disability and a career within the Web
> Development and Design field, my viewpoint is that the more
commercialized
> that accessibility gets, the sharper the "double-edge sword" gets.
What I
> mean by this is that there are going to be pros and cons regarding
this and
> those pros and cons will begin to make stronger impacts upon people's
> decisions in the use of accessibility.
>
> Pros:
> 1) Increased awareness of accessibility issues to larget audiences.
> 2) With the monies earned, the possibility of accessiblility features
being
> researched and new technologies created.
>
> Cons:
> 1) Cost becomes too high for accessibility tools to be used and
company's
> therefore not using the necessary tools. This is my dilemma in
regards to
> training.
> 2) Accessibility should be used throughout the world, however only the
U.S.,
> Canada and U.K have/or implementing some type of accessibility laws
> "requiring" in a limited way that accessibility must be met. (If I
forgot a
> country I apologize). This in turns creates an "unfair" playing field
in my
> opinion. So for example, Sony Inc. is a Japanese company and is not
bound
> by any law to create accessible content, so they don't have to worry
nor
> spend money for accessiblility issues on their web sites, however
Microsoft
> is an American company that is bound by American law to provide
> accessiblility on their web sites so they have to spend and worry
about
> accessiblility issues....(NOTE: this is an example to clarify the
point!)
>
> I am sure there are many more pros and cons however these are the main
two
> that stick in my mind the most. Plus another fear that I have in
regards to
> the commercialization of accessibility ( I am not against making money
just
> cautious about the "results" regarding this - i.e causing prices to
increase
> and tools, once being free like Bobby, now having to be bought for
usage )
> is that people tend to forget that I or anyone else witha disability
have
> the right to be able to access public information for free as everyone
else.
>
> Why should I pay money so I can get closed captioning on a video when
a
> "normal" person can view the same video for free. I have a right to
the
> same information as anyone else but I have to 'pay' for it.
>
> I see this happening just for the fact that companies will have to
find some
> way to pay for the services that they 'had' to 'pay' for in order to
make
> the video accessible. And those costs will trickle down to the users
of
> that service.
>
> Those are my thoughts, take them in anyway you like them.
>
> Michael





-

From: Ricci, Mark
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 9:42AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

I am new to the group and I am just beginning to get a feel for its
dynamics. Some of the responses to the post "The Commercialization of Web
Accessibility" have mentioned that a person with a disability shouldn't have
to pay for accessible content. Unfortunately, in order for a disabled
person to be treated fairly "Why should I pay money so I can get closed
captioning on a video when a "normal" person can view the same video for
free." the content producers mindset has to change.
The idea of making any source accessible to all has to come first,
not be done after the fact. This is where the costs come in that trickle
down to the consumers. The mindset of the country is to get content out to
the majority of consumers as quickly and cheaply as possible. Making
content accessible to all incurs additional cost which in the end cuts into
profits. Businesses have to come up with ways to make content accessible
cheaply. This is where Commercialization of Web Accessibility come
in. If businesses can provide content cheaply then their mindset will
change and accessible content will become a standard not an after the fact
expense. With the help of entrepreneurs the tools and services needed to
achieve this goal can be born.


My thoughts only,

Mark


This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use,
disclosure or distribution by persons or entities other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply and destroy all copies of the original message.
Thank you.

WordWave, Capturing the Power of the Spoken Word
http://www.wordwave.com




-

From: Cohen, Lisa A.
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 9:50AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Just wanted to pass along some thoughts on the effects of Section 508 on the
marketplace... I attended a conference on "legal and procurement issues of
Section 508". One of the effects of this rule for federal government
procurement is that the government is now required to purchase the most
compliant Electronic and Information Technology product, regardless of
greater cost. This should have a huge effect on the marketplace.

In Michael's example (below, Con #2) of Sony being a Japanese company not
required to make products accessible, I believe it is actually the case that
the law does not target American companies, but instead regulates American
government purchases. Therefore, in order to compete in the huge U.S.
federal marketplace, Sony, or any other company, will also be required to
make their products accessible (or rather, 508 compliant).

Some changes in procurement law a few years back actually encouraged the
federal government to go out and buy less expensive COTS tools (when
available) because of the competitive pricing which saved U.S. taxpayer
dollars. The Section 508 rule actually places the higher priority on 508
compliance rather than on cost, which when you think about it, should create
enormous opportunity for profitable 508 related businesses to gain market
share. Unfortunately, this may unintentionally increase the likelihood of
higher prices (Michael's Con #1).

Lisa Cohen



-

From: Michael Goddard
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 10:52AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

<BR>As an individual who has a
disability and a career within the Web<BR>Development and Design field, my
viewpoint is that the more commercialized<BR>that accessibility gets, the
sharper the "double-edge sword" gets.&nbsp; What I<BR>mean by this is that
there
are going to be pros and cons regarding this and<BR>those pros and cons will
begin to make stronger impacts upon people's<BR>decisions in the use of
accessibility.<BR><BR>Pros:<BR>1) Increased awareness of accessibility issues
to
larget audiences.<BR>2) With the monies earned, the possibility of
accessiblility features being<BR>researched and new technologies
created.<BR><BR>Cons:<BR>1) Cost becomes too high for accessibility tools to
be
used and company's<BR>therefore not using the necessary tools.&nbsp; This is
my
dilemma in regards to<BR>training.<BR>2) Accessibility should be used
throughout
the world, however only the U.S.,<BR>Canada and U.K have/or implementing some
type of accessibility laws<BR>"requiring" in a limited way that accessibility
must be met. (If I forgot a<BR>country I apologize). This in turns creates an
"unfair" playing field in my<BR>opinion.&nbsp; So for example, Sony Inc. is a
Japanese company and is not bound<BR>by any law to create accessible content,
so
they don't have to worry nor<BR>spend money for accessiblility issues on their

web sites, however Microsoft<BR>is an American company that is bound by
American
law to provide<BR>accessiblility on their web sites so they have to spend and
worry about<BR>accessiblility issues....(NOTE: this is an example to clarify
the
point!)<BR><BR>I am sure there are many more pros and cons however these are
the
main two<BR>that stick in my mind the most.&nbsp; Plus another fear that I
have
in regards to<BR>the commercialization of accessibility ( I am not against
making money just<BR>cautious about the "results" regarding this - i.e causing

prices to increase<BR>and tools, once being free like Bobby, now having to be
bought for usage )<BR>is that people tend to forget that I or anyone else
witha
disability have<BR>the right to be able to access public information for free
as
everyone else.<BR><BR>Why should I pay money so I can get closed captioning on
a
video when a<BR>"normal" person can view the same video for free.&nbsp; I have
a
right to the<BR>same information as anyone else but I have to 'pay' for
it.<BR><BR>I see this happening just for the fact that companies will have to
find some<BR>way to pay for the services that they 'had' to 'pay' for in order

to make<BR>the video accessible.&nbsp; And those costs will trickle down to
the
users of<BR>that service.<BR><BR>Those are my thoughts, take them in anyway
you
like them.<BR><BR>Michael<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>---<BR>To subscribe, unsubscribe,

or view list archives,<BR>visit <A target=_blank
href="http://www.webaim.org/discussion/">http://www.webaim.org/discussion/<;/A><BR></P></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C188A1.9B932AF0--


-

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 10:58AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

At 9:50 AM -0500 12/19/01, Carol Foster wrote:
>I would love to see Jakob Neilsen's report and Kynn's book
>available at bookish prices, say $35 give or take, either as books or
>PDF's or whatever.

BTW I don't currently _have_ a book nor am I working on one. :) Just
don't want unfounded rumors to get started.

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 10:59AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

At 7:27 AM -0800 12/19/01, Cohen, Lisa A. wrote:
>Just wanted to pass along some thoughts on the effects of Section
>508 on the marketplace... I attended a conference on "legal and
>procurement issues of Section 508". One of the effects of this rule
>for federal government procurement is that the government is now
>required to purchase the most compliant Electronic and Information
>Technology product, regardless of greater cost. This should have a
>huge effect on the marketplace.

I should probably mention here that I believe this is the silliest provision
of 508 and is non-sensical to the point where this could be used as a
reason to get 508 trashed entirely.

By making accessibility the only criteria (not features, not cost, nothing
else), you only do harm.

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 10:59AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

At 7:27 AM -0800 12/19/01, Cohen, Lisa A. wrote:
>Just wanted to pass along some thoughts on the effects of Section
>508 on the marketplace... I attended a conference on "legal and
>procurement issues of Section 508". One of the effects of this rule
>for federal government procurement is that the government is now
>required to purchase the most compliant Electronic and Information
>Technology product, regardless of greater cost. This should have a
>huge effect on the marketplace.

I should probably mention here that I believe this is the silliest provision
of 508 and is non-sensical to the point where this could be used as a
reason to get 508 trashed entirely.

By making accessibility the only criteria (not features, not cost, nothing
else), you only do harm. All you have to do is make a version which is
more accessible (by 508 standards) than your competition, and charge ten
times the price for it!

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Susan
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 11:21AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

The question is finding a balance. Charging enough to cover your own
costs and hopefully make a little profit but not enough to put off
prospective customers. This is why my market research includes the
question how much would you be willing to pay for something like this.
If you put off prospective customers not only do you lose out from the
loss of a sale the people who would have benefited from your product
will not benefit. In other words, it involves basic economics with its
supply and demand curves and consideration of things like elasticity,
ideas that I thought I left behind after doing economics at school.

Unfortunately there are so many middle men (and women) who want to take
a slice of the income that you make from your product. This is true for
books as publishers need to make a living as well as the author. With
web sites this can be a pretty big slice as I realised when I looked
into how much it would cost me to set up a means of getting paid from a
web site.

Another way of finding a balance is what you put in a book to sell and
what you put in various articles. I can think of 2 cookery writers one
who repeats the recipes in her book in article after article in various
places and one who takes much more care what she allows to be reproduced
on web sites and in magazine articles so that she does not use all the
contents of her book. People buy the book from the first one and realise
that they have already read most of it and feel cheated. Those who buy
the book after reading the tasters from the second author find lots of
new material so her readers feel that they have got value for money from
their purchase. Of course this applies to authors in every field. This
is something that everyone who produces material in a number of formats
has to be aware of.

>>
If I wrote a book on accessibility,
I might sell some copies and that would be a good thing. However,
if I created a free web site and PDF with the same content, more
people would get it. But I would have less motive to do this,
because it would be, effectively, money out of my own pocket.
>>
I have friend who has a publishing deal at the moment for a book that
she has worked on for 6 years on and off. She has been asking just about
everyone she knows to preorder a copy from her because she has to buy
the first 1000 copies herself and therefore find a rather large sum of
money for the publisher in a few weeks time. The idea being that these
folks will pay for it in advance so she has the money to give the
publisher. If all these books sell she will make a profit but until then
she has to store them. Hearing this I am not sure that publishing a
proper book is that good a money-making idea.

>>
And thus the businessman is in necessary conflict with the
activist. Businessmen want to monetize accessibility because,
as they see it, they can make money out of it _and_ by making
money they can guarantee the availability and maintenance of
the resource, and even develop further resources. The activist
looks primarily at the good that's done for people in need, and
sometimes has to make compromises for practicality's sake,
recognizing that content won't get created if it means too much
personal sacrifice.
>>
Again it's balance. I don't want to make my fortune from providing
information that people need whatever it is (I have a second household
based project on the go as well and even a third idea on the back
burner.) I would like to cover my costs and have a little leftover to
save up to replace hardware and software as necessary as without this
little could be achieved. I don't have a home to pay for as my husband's
salary pays for those bills. OK a fair days pay for a fair days work
would be nice but what would I do with the money if I got it. I cannot
think of anything I need that money can buy. OK there are a few wants
most of those I can live without if I did not have the money. Therefore
it would be frittered away on unnecessary things and no one would get
very much benefit.

Susan






-

From: Susan
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 11:21AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

2) Accessibility should be used throughout the world, however only the
U.S.,
Canada and U.K have/or implementing some type of accessibility laws
"requiring" in a limited way that accessibility must be met. (If I
forgot a
country I apologize). This in turns creates an "unfair" playing field in
my
opinion. So for example, Sony Inc. is a Japanese company and is not
bound
by any law to create accessible content, so they don't have to worry nor
spend money for accessiblility issues on their web sites, however
Microsoft
is an American company that is bound by American law to provide
accessiblility on their web sites so they have to spend and worry about
accessiblility issues....(NOTE: this is an example to clarify the
point!)

Anyone interested in the UK situation as regards accessibility will find
the following article interesting reading.
http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/sloan.html

One of our local universities offers MSc courses as post-graduate
vocational training for people likely to go into some sort of web site
development position. That article suggests that sites which are not at
least single A compliant are breaking the law and have been for the last
2 years. I am a mature student doing that course on a part time basis
and so far I have heard accessibility mentioned in passing on two
occasions on different modules of the course. In February for the first
time there will be an optional course on accessibility, some 2.5 years
after the law on accessibility came into force. In fact the ideas behind
this course were developed while one of the lecturers spent some
considerable time in Australia. It's an optional module rather than
being one of the compulsory ones. I am afraid that this is fairly
typical of the reaction to accessibility as a subject in the academic
world in the UK.

Another thing that folk outside Europe might not realise is the way the
European Union encourages member countries to develop laws on certain
issues. There are already some laws which have developed because of this
encouragement which affect web site development including those on human
rights and data protection. The human rights act makes it illegal for
publicly funded organisations to discriminate against the disabled. In
other words a web site provided by an organisation funded by tax payer's
money cannot treat a more able person better than a less able person.
The data protection act causes problems when web sites are set up to
store personal details outside a country that does not have the same
standards in data protection. In practise this makes it so that American
payment systems that record buyers' addresses are illegal to use in the
UK. It is not impossible that laws will be encouraged by Europe that
will enforce accessibility including web accessibility in every country
in the European Union including France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal,
Spain, and Luxembourg.

Mind you it is a fact of life that some countries tie up companies in
many rules and regulations about health and safety whereas others have
no restrictions at all. I think of the many industrial premises which do
not meet standards required in the UK or US that have caused
environmental and health problems in Eastern Europe or Asia. Some have
hit the headlines when things have gone wrong e.g. Bhopal, Chernobyl but
others are running on quietly and people are suffering as a result. I
don't mean to open Pandora's box with making these comparisons just show
that web accessibility is not alone in facing such issues. I suspect
that if you picked an issue and viewed that idea on a global basis you
will see some unfairness. Sorry but unfairness seems to be a fact of
life although there are ways in which we gain from that unfairness and
ways that we lose.

Susan





-

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 3:36PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi,

I think some of the replies I have seen (here and on other lists) may
indicate a misunderstanding of Kynn's fundamental question. The question
does not seem to be whether or not we should become comercialized. The
actions of governments (at our own pressing) make that inevitable. The
question is not even whether this is a good or bad thing. It is just the
way things will work. -- be it good, bad, or indifferent.

I think the fundamental question Kynn is raising is what are our plans now?
What are our goals?

3 or 4 years ago, I would have said our primary goal was to get people to
take us seriously. That is still a valid goal. However, we now have people
starting to take us seriously. -- for various reasons. What part should the
W3C play? What role should business play? Business is really an element to
the equation I have seen discussed little. Oh, I have seen lots of
discussions on what Microsoft, Netscape, AOL, Macromedia, Adobe, and other
tech. business ses should do and what their part is. However, I have seen
scant discussion about the rest of the private sector's involvement. -- and
I say that as a person who works for a major insurance company and who is
keenly interested in accessibility.

In my job, I work a lot with Human Factors specialists and interface design
specialists. These are people who are specifically trained in the area of
Human-Computer interactions. I have always noticed that Human Factors
people tend to organize into associations like HFES or CHI. I gather that
other professions do something similar. However, with regards to
accessibility, we seem not to have a strong organization that serves a
similar purpose. Is it time people begin to look at that?

Perhaps, I have opened up a can of worms...then again, I keep telling our
boss that we keep a large box of them here just in case.

Thoughts?
Tim



- ---------------

From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 7:12PM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Kynn and all,

I think it is arrogant, Kynn, for you to post the same eleven hundred word
message on each of three lists (WebAIM, WebWatch and WAI IG) which have a
large common following. Thank you, though, for not making the post
simultaneously; at least we didn't have to follow the discussion repeated on
three lists. I am amazed how much time you (and others) have to initiate,
read and respond to list traffic!

I agree that 508 has brought about the commercialization of web
accessibility. I believe major corporations are taking accessibility
seriously along with Federal agencies.

There is one dramatic down side, in my opinion. Experts like you, Kynn, are
not generally the ones being called by those corporations or agencies. Some,
maybe, but for the most part, large consulting companies create a "Section
508 Accessibility Division," and go after the work. They don't have the
competence and technical know-how to do it right. The work doesn't get
reviewed. The quality of accessibility suffers. This is less true for Web,
because there are such good resources available for web accessibility. It is
more true for the other five 508 Rules.

Jim
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931

-

From: Atul Pant
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2001 11:54PM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear Kynn,

I have been following this mailing list for a while now but this is my first
posting. My name is Atul, I am an Indian, at present based in Singapore. I
was earlier working for an Indian web solutions company (e-communications
and e-learning solutions). Recently, together with some like minded friends,
we set up a company called Enabling Dimensions, that plans to provide web
solutions that makes using the internet easier for the disabled and elderly.
Our focus is more on Asian countries. I thought I will share with you our
thought process in setting up Enabling Dimensions, as some observations on
your email:

- - We were also faced by the dilemma whether the pursuit should be guided by
profit motive or not. We found a `middle-path', in the `social
entrepreneurship' paradigm. Social Entrepreneurship is pursuit of a social
mission with business-like discipline, innovation and determination. While
usual businesses are driven by the objective of creating personal wealth for
the share-holders, social entreprenuers not only create value for individual
stakeholders in the enterprise (an essential for survival and growth) but
also generate social capital at large. For a very good paper on the concept
of social entrepreneurship you could refer to
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/services/news/DeesSocentrepPaper.html - an
article by Prof Gregory Dees, Stanford University.

- - While deliberating on a consensus approach vs individual motive driven
ideology, we reached the conclusion that the need of the hour today is wider
sensitization on the issue of accessibility. For this higher objective what
is required is a critical mass of opinion in favour of universal web access
and for achieving this objective `the more the merrier' should be a good
approach. Just as the biggest motivation of Federal Agencies and their
corporate suppliers in USA for adhering to Section 508 could be to preempt
potential law suits rather than the spirit of 508, end of the day, whatever
the motivation it will raise the sensitization on the issue of accessibility
and the benefits to the disabled community will percolate beyond USA.

- - Today, the concept of web accessibility is where accessible buildings and
roads were maybe twenty years back. At that time curb cuts, wheel chair
ramps, toilets for disabled etc were a novelty (which they still are in most
Asian countries). Now these are taken almost for granted. This has happened
primarily because public opinion made them a mainstream issue and all
builders had to abide by the accessibility guidelines. The same should
happen to web accessibility - i.e. it should become a mainstream issue, only
then will mindsets change and will a more disabled friendly web be created.

- - To further illustrate this point, you could consider the 100th Monkey
Phenomenon (I am not sure if this is real research or just a parable,
whichever way it illustrates the point I am trying to make): The 100th
Monkey Phenomenon gets its name from an incident involving macaque monkeys
on Koshima Island, Japan. In the 1950's, primate behavior researchers began
giving the monkeys sweet potatoes. Most of the macaques ate the potatoes
dirty, but some began rinsing them in sea water first. The habit was slow to
catch on, but as the story goes, when the number who rinsed their potatoes
reached 100 (or `n'), suddenly every macaque on Koshima adopted the
practice. The incident has been used to encourage the spread of desirable
social behavior - if enough people engage in the behavior, then it will
instantaneously spread to everyone else.

- - Lastly, permit me to be a little philosophical. I think in life it is
important to follow a philosophy one believes in because life, end of the
day, is about self-evolution. Indian philosophy describes this evolution of
self as - material, man, mind, intelligence and traquility of spirit. We
humans should choose a life path that helps us achieve a equanimous state of
the mind, a tranquil spirit. When we look at our life problems from the
perspective of self-evolution, we usually find an answer. Hope this response
helps you find yours.

Cheers,
Atul

**********************************
Atul Pant
Enabling Dimensions
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

- -

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2001 3:03PM
Subject: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

A couple of weeks ago on the WebAIM list, I made an off-the-cuff
remark about how I should charge more for the work I do related to
web accessibility. I wasn't really serious, but some folks piped
up anyway to show appreciation to me, and I graciously accept it.

Thinking on the matter further, though, has got me thinking about
the commercialization of web accessibility -- about increasing moves
away from simple grass-roots help and toward the idea of web
accessibilty as a business model.

Much of the newfound profitability of web accessibility stems
directly from the U.S. government's Section 508 requirements for
accessibility -- a legislative remedy that I've both praised as
excellent in theory and criticized as poor in implementation.
One major effect of 508 has been to carve out new niche markets
which didn't exist before, in terms of services and support for
accesible web design.

The effects of this are debatable -- there have been a number of
moves by for-profit and non-profit groups alike to "cash in" on
these new market niches. This may not be a bad thing, as for years
web accessibility was _not_ a hot, "sexy" item and a number of
people and companies, myself included, have not made nearly the
money that would normally be coming to us if we'd give up this
accessibility cause and spend our time in the pursuit of
profit.

On the other hand, there's questions as to the changing nature of
the field and whether or not that will have positive implications
on the end users of the Internet who may have disabilities.

Here's some of the things I'm thinking about today:

* CAST's Bobby program is no longer free. The web version has
no charge associated with it, but the downloadable, locally
run program (for checking mass numbers of pages, pages behind
a firewall, or those which aren't live yet) is now $99. (Or
far more for a site license.)

* The Brainbench test on accessibility is no longer free either;
it's now $20 or so, if you want to test your knowledge of
web accessibility and certify it with an online test.

* My own web accessibility online course -- running since 1998 --
has been joined by a number of other online courses. WebAIM,
EASI, WOW. All of these have a higher price point than my
seven-week course by about a factor of 3 to 10; perhaps I need
to up rates to stay competitive.

* Macromedia has recently put out a nice package of materials
on accessibility -- but to get it, apparently you need to
buy a Macromedia product.

* Jakob Nielsen's done an accessibility and usability study;
you can buy it for about $200 in PDF format. The WAI idea of
cooperative, consensus-based creation of accessibility
guidelines doesn't seem to be particularly proftiable.

* Books are in production on web accessibility, including books
written by members of the W3C's working group. Joe Clark
is the most obvious example; his blog has mentioned great
advances in figuring out how to make web sites accessible.
But you won't read about them in WCAG 2.0 -- you'll need to
buy Joe's book.

* A number of new companies -- or perhaps old companies with new
marketing budgets -- have sprung up to offer accessibility
consulting and evaluation services at prices of dozens of
thousands of dollars or more.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not stating the above as items which
should (or should not) be criticized. I'm looking at them as part
of a bigger picture, and I'm asking the question of whether or not
this will have a net positive effect.

Many of the things listed are indicative of a greater awareness
of web accessibility, and that's something I and others have been
working on for a long time. The increase in the number of
training options, the corporate attention to the issue, the
involvement of a major usability "celebrity" in championing
accessibility, the greater willingness of publishers to take
a chance on an accessibility book -- these are all welcome
changes for the better.

But other things need to be considered as well, such as the
continuing role of the W3C in these events, the possibility of
"profiteering" (if that's even a bad thing), the increasing
expense to the independent web designer, and so on. I'm not
sure if these questions are currently being raised, and I'm
not entirely sure which forum is appropriate for raising them
(and thus the fact that you may see this posted several
places).

Will we see, for example, a "proprietization" of web accessibility
techniques? Will Macromedia or Kynn Bartlett or Joe Clark or
anyone else decide that it's not worth their time to work on
consensus-based projects but instead to create copyrighted materials?
Will instructors of online classes realize that they can make more
money doing consulting instead of training other consultants who
then get the lucrative gigs? Will A-Prompt or the W3C Validator
become victims of their own success and decide to start charging
since Bobby did?

I don't think people are getting rich in droves off this, by
the way. I don't imagine CAST bigwigs sitting back cackling
with glee, or Joe Clark buying a huge mansion with the advances
on his hard work. And I wouldn't even object if it were
happening -- partly because I think there are a number of people
who have done great work who have been financially UNrewarded for
their efforts, and partially out of pure self-interest greed.
Hey, I'd love for my chosen field of interest to suddenly become
the path to financial freedom!

A better explanation is that this is "web accessibility growing up",
at least a little bit. Of new forces that weren't at work several
years ago now coming to the fore, and with those, we need to look
at existing processes and see how they're being changed. It's
time to discuss the role of the W3C in the future of web
accessibility. It's time to discuss the corporate and
government interests. It's time to re-evaluate what we're doing
and where things are going, and for it's time for some of us to
make clearer plans and provide vision.

This rambled on a bit more than I thought it would. While some of
it may be generated by my ongoing state of unemployment (and thus
opportunity and motive to consider the larger picture), I believe
these are topics that would be good for discussion among people
who share the same goal of improving accessibility of the web
for everyone.

What do you think?

- - --Kynn

- - --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201









-

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2001 12:03AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

At 7:03 PM -0600 12/19/01, Jim Thatcher wrote:
>I think it is arrogant, Kynn, for you to post the same eleven hundred word
>message on each of three lists (WebAIM, WebWatch and WAI IG) which have a
>large common following. Thank you, though, for not making the post
>simultaneously; at least we didn't have to follow the discussion repeated on
>three lists. I am amazed how much time you (and others) have to initiate,
>read and respond to list traffic!

I'm amazed, Jim Thatcher, how you can yourself participate in huge
threads over little tiny niggling details of tag trivia, and then have
the balls to publicly blast me as "arrogant" for raising what I feel is
a serious and important issue -- and please do note that I'm not the only
one who feels this is worth discussing.

(For example, I see 11 posts by you on the 508 list in 3 days about
how to mark up @scope and other attributes for tables; you've also posted
a number of messages to the WAI IG this month, too.)

I understand that you may disagree with me, and you're free to do so,
but could you please try to not be such a hypocrite (and smugly self-
righteous) if you've decided you absolutely MUST be a jerk to me?

And that is what you're doing, Jim, by starting your reply with a
personal attack and insult. (Plus an inaccuracy -- I never posted
this to WebWatch, although I did post this to three, on-topic mailing
lists.)

And, yes, I did mean to post this publicly, because I don't appreciate
this kind of public abuse from you. Disagree with the points I may
make, but please don't come in with personal insults just because
you have decided -- for whatever reason -- that you don't like me.
That's just pretty damn childish, and I don't intend to take it.

- --Kynn

- --
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201


-

From: Adrian Howard
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2001 6:31AM
Subject: Re: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →

on 19/12/01 9:29 pm, Tim Harshbarger at = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
wrote:
[snip]
> In my job, I work a lot with Human Factors specialists and interface design
> specialists. These are people who are specifically trained in the area of
> Human-Computer interactions. I have always noticed that Human Factors
> people tend to organize into associations like HFES or CHI. I gather that
> other professions do something similar. However, with regards to
> accessibility, we seem not to have a strong organization that serves a
> similar purpose. Is it time people begin to look at that?
>
> Perhaps, I have opened up a can of worms...then again, I keep telling our
boss
> that we keep a large box of them here just in case.
[snip]

Worms.... yummy... where's my can opener :-)

To be slightly provocative --- is the fact that accessibility people don't
form organisation(s) due to the fact that it's not really a separate
profession?

Personally, I have always viewed accessibility work as an (admittedly much
neglected) specialisation of general usability work.

This may be a personal bias. I came into doing work on accessibility from
doing usability work --- and found myself applying much the same skills and
knowledge.

My feeling is that most accessibility work is going to get folded into
related professions (usability, info science, etc.) with a few specialised
skills around the outside (e.g. captioning/subtitling).

Would this be a good thing?

On the plus side: One of the problems I have with promoting accessibility
issues is that it's seen as something separate, specialised, and aimed at
minorities. Sad I know. Having accessibility as part of a more general field
that is seen as dealing with larger groups of users will help.

On the minus side: I fear that only a subset of knowledge will make it out
into the more general fields. You are already seeing this in companies that
are adding "accessibility" to their list of buzzwords and only understanding
part of what this means.

So, do people doing accessibility work have a role in promoting in related
fields --- rather than to producers of content?

Cheers,

Adrian
- --
e. = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , t. 01929 550720, f. 0870 131 3033



-

From: Lisa Halabi
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2001 10:57AM
Subject: RE: The Commercialization of Web Accessibility
← Previous message | No next message

Hi Susan

Personally I like the sound of your book. I don't have time to read a large
novel and 40 pages sounds about right. Why don't you try and get it
published like one of those short training manuals. Most of the info is
already out there, but few people can be bothered to look for it.

Regards,
Lisa Halabi
Senior Usability Consultant
Usability by Design Ltd. London
http://www.UsabilityByDesign.com
Mobile: +44 (0)7956 280 447

[My opinions only. Quote Freely]

- --------------
Please refer to the following disclaimer in respect of this message:
http://www.usability.uk.com/disclaimer.htm

-