Accessibility Audit Experience Needed - Can You Help?
| Gary Miller wrote: |
|
Thanks JackP. I've been looking at IT Jobs Watch - Web Designer category. Based on the information in that document, I think an hourly rate of £13.00 seems reasonable, with a daily rate of £175.00. Does this seem fair? If anyone thinks it's too low, bear in mind that I'll be working from home with no overheads for an office, staff, etc. If it's too high, could you tell me why and what you think a more realistic figure would be for someone like myself just starting out? Cheers! |
Just for a comparison: When I started out straight out of uni I was paid the equivalent of £11 per hour (24k a year). This was at a large digital media agency in London and we got benefits like free breakfast, free fruit, free beer on Fridays, 25 days paid holiday etc etc. You might not be paying employers tax, VAT and stuff like that (yet), but you do have to add some money for "benefits" hehe. You do plan to make a living from this right?
I'm working as a contractor now so my pay vary but at the moment I'm being paid by the hour, £22.50. I graduated in summer of 2007 btw, so in less than 3 years it has gone from £11 (when I didn't know anything about websites at all!) to £22.50.
I'm going back to uni in August and my current employers tells me I have to set up my own company so I can continue to work for them. They suggested an hourly rate of £60 to cover my expenses like VAT and of course software purchases, which are tax-deductable anyways.
So my inital thought is, are you selling yourself short?
EDIT: Forgot to say I'm a front-end engineer / interface developer.
Share: 
Linda,
Well, you've got just less than 3 years experience more than I have! I've really only got one commercial design under my belt so far. Unless you count my own site - which is currently undergoing major re-design - and my blog - which was set up using a free template.
I'm going to be designing, auditing, conversions and training (different price structure altogether). The major focus in all of these being accessibility.
I'm not sure, giving my limited experience (I hand code using HTML, CSS and PHP) that I could justify quoting the type of rates that you command. It may even mean loss of work - of course, I realise that if you don't make a realistic quote, people tend to think you don't think much of your own ability.
Thorny issue!!
Share:
I started Calthorpe Park School for free. It was choc-a-bloc for about half a year before they volunteered to start paying me. (More about that.) I earn £1,000-£1,100 a year from that but it's good for my portfolio. Especially with it winning the county council's "Most Accessible Website" category 2 years running. 
I've been working with sDesign1 since 2006. I started at £15 per hour, after 6 months it was £20 and after another few months it was £25. This was mostly for doing accessibility audits; I sometimes went back to £20 per hour for CSS fixes and HTML wrangling.
Other design firms have paid me £15 per hour for informal expert reviews.
£60 per hour?! I wish! The main problem is finding places with enough big-team jobs to afford paying wages that high. Doing it alone is a fast (but tough) way to get started. Eventually you'll need to join up with other folks to survive. As with any industry.
(We aren't engaged in a price-fixing scam. We're just talking about our earnings. Like big companies and entrepreneurs do.)
Share:
Yeah £60 per seems like a lot. But after VAT and income tax (sole trader) it's about £27 per hour.
It's the council that suggested the price. They don't have an inhouse web team.
Share:
| Gary Miller wrote: | ||
Rats! Oh well, thanks for letting me know anyway.
Now, where did I leave the Tardis... 
The good news is that I've received a couple of offers to do some auditing. It's unpaid in a financial sense, but the feedback I'll receive will be far more worthwhile... |
Sounds good, all the best with it
Share:
I've created a template for an accessibility audit report. I was wondering if any of you fine people could cast your eye over it for me please?
Sorry, but at the moment it's in Word 97/2003 format (198.5KB): WCAG 2.0 Audit Report.
As ever, all criticism welcome!
Share:
- Many of the details would be reduced by the client, such as only targeting support at IE6 and IE7.
- Good but still quite messy use of Word Styles.
- Don't copy-and-paste WCAG 2 into your audits. The client only needs to know what they pass or fail. For the things they fail, they need only know why it matters and how to fix it.
- Categorising by Priority A, AA and AAA is more relevant to clients than the somewhat arbitrary subject-based sectioning of WCAG 2.
- Summaries should be at the start, not the end. (Upside-Down Pyramid Writing Style is good outside of the web.)
- Probably no need to break down validator results. The company which carries out the fixes must runn the pages through a validator as they fix them, you see.
Share:
Ben, thanks for the feedback!
I basically threw everything I could into the report! I have been fine-tuning it somewhat drastically.
Your comments will help me to trim it down even more...
Share:
Ben, been thinking some more about the points you raised:
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Many of the details would be reduced by the client, such as only targeting support at IE6 and IE7. |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Good but still quite messy use of Word Styles. |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Don't copy-and-paste WCAG 2 into your audits. The client only needs to know what they pass or fail. For the things they fail, they need only know why it matters and how to fix it. |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Categorising by Priority A, AA and AAA is more relevant to clients than the somewhat arbitrary subject-based sectioning of WCAG 2. |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Summaries should be at the start, not the end. (Upside-Down Pyramid Writing Style is good outside of the web.) |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Probably no need to break down validator results. The company which carries out the fixes must runn the pages through a validator as they fix them, you see. |
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| Overall, it's a fine start but needs to be more client-focussed. |
Thanks again...
Share:
| Gary Miller wrote: |
| If I only used IE, because that's what they wanted, wouldn't I be failing them by not including other UAs and platforms? |
I always mention supporting more browsers means more customers, so a few extra browsers can usually be added. Supporting Lynx seems a bit dubious since you can turn off styles and scripts in graphical browsers. It does have good keyboard usability but Opera's Spatial Navigation is even better.
| Gary Miller wrote: |
| By this, do you mean that I should only list Guideline/Criterion number if it's a pass, and only expand if it's a fail? |
| Gary Miller wrote: |
| Actually, I was kinda hoping they'd hire me to carry out the fixes... |
Share:
Accessibility Audit Report Template v2 now available - in HTML.
It's bare html only at the moment - no styling, etc. It's all on one page, but the final version will be spread over several pages, with suitable links, table of contents, etc.
@Ben: I think I've managed to incorporate all of your suggestions but, as ever, all feedback warmly received.
Cheers!
Share:
That's more like it!
The nested definition lists seem a bit clumsy. Those repetitive <dt> elements look like they should be <th> cells at the start of a <table>, with 1 row per page.
If you do that, adding a Pass/Fail final column would make that section into a great summary. Everything which was audited and whether it passed. All in one place, presented compactly.
Having a Conformance section all by itself also makes the report feel a bit fragmented. Integrating this with the detailed results sections makes more sense, I think.
Editorially, the Results Summary section should be called Results or Results in Detail. It contains 12 sections of results!
3 spaces per indention level is...unusual. As is indenting nested lists without indenting their items by one more level.
Share:
Ben, thanks for the feedback!
I had thought of tables originally, but felt that <dl> was more appropriate. However, in the cold light of day - and taking your feedback into consideration - it seems to me that this would be a totally valid use of a table.
Working on it..v3 available very soon...and again, thanks for the feedback Ben!
Share:
Hey Gary,
Our company charges $125 per hour.
E-mail me your resume at rmusachio@tecaccess.net, and I'll pas it along.
Rosemary Musachio
E&IT Accessibility Analyst
SSB BART Group
www.ssbbartgroup.com
Without challenges, you are not living
Share:
Hi Rosemary,
That would be great! I'll forward it on...just as soon as I've updated it!
Cheers!
Share: