Encouraging accessibility?
Recently I in another group I posted a reference to this forum. I wanted to encourage more people to look into it. I've had a "full access" button on my web site for years. Anyhow the response I got was "Not everyone will devote the time to alter a site or build a new site within the parameters for visually handicapped people. That's not ignorance but simply a business decision."
Sooo what I'm looking for is a FAQ that will help with this "business decision."
Share: 
A quick web search about this turned up some promising results.
| Legal & General wrote: |
|
There are tidier summaries. A case study collections I stumbled upon mentioned Tesco as another prominent example. I saw a presentation by Tesco at Internet World 2007. It boils down to designing for the down-to-earth user tasks people actual want to do.
Including disabled people in that simply means even more customers.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Thanks for looking. I appreciate it. I think that my belief in what one should do made me miss the lack of facts and figures to support business benefits in doing it. Ouch - I had no facts and figures to refute "Why should I add 90% costs to serve a possible 10% population - that isn't good business."
Sorry for just popping up and sharing a moment of frustration but I realized that I had nothing concrete to use as a persuasive tool. Most of the "why do it" I've read is too unquantified to persuade. Saying that improving accessibility also improves useability doesn't help. Not because it isn't true but because it doesn't answer whether that improvement translates sufficiently into increased income sufficient to justify the costs. Making it possible to get a wider array of visitors doesn't mean those visitors will come, nor that they will buy. All these business people know that. *sigh*
Share:
Hi Diane,
Well, first there's the carrot:
- Accessible websites tend to be designed with standards in mind; this often confers faster loading times and more flexibility in coping with devices such as mobile phones.
- If your site is designed with screen readers in mind, it will almost always have excellent SEO. In terms of what data they can extract from your site, search engines are basically blind users who can only understand pure text information, and can only attribute importance or structure to information based on parsing your markup.
- Being a specialised application of usability, having an accessible website usually improves overall usability. For example, if you bear in mind that your readers may have cognitive disabilities, e.g. dyslexia, you will write clearer, simpler copy and present it legibly—something that all users will appreciate!
- Accessible websites are not so much more expensive than inaccessible ones. Yes, they require more attention and planning; no, this will not add 90% to your project budget. 10% is a more reasonable estimate, and if you are designing with web standards and best practises in mind (as any web developer worth their salt should be), it could be much less. Cerbera, back me up on this: how much extra time do you spend making sure a site is accessible? Do you think it would even be possible for you to design an inaccessible site any faster, given your existing knowledge?
And then there's the stick:
- Minor disabilities are not so rare as you might expect. Many people have dyslexia, low vision, poor co-ordination or problems focusing on text or information. These people are already struggling with (and possibly leaving) your website, and if you care about their custom you will provide for them.
- Just as shops with stairs are expected to provide ramps or lifts, services provided online need to make reasonable accommodations for disabled potential customers. This is a legal requirement, albeit not much tested, and it will cost even more if you are compelled to make an existing site accessible rather than designing it to be so in the first place.
I can personally attest to all of the above. The biggest website my company owns is currently being redeveloped from scratch, both to add new features and to improve on the sorry state of the existing site. Particular areas of the site are not terrbily user-friendly, and a huge number of our phone calls are related to only a couple of poorly-designed (and, you guessed it, accessibility-unfriendly) features. Also, it has almost no value to search engines due to the lack of text and structure, so as you might guess it is completely off-limits to screenreaders. We have received a complaint from a blind user in the last month that he will not be using our services because our website is impossible for him to use; he also cited our legal responsibilities in this area, and directed us to the RNIB site for guidance. Disabled users are often very interested in and aware of their rights, and I am inclined to believe that as more companies comply they will become less tolerant of those who ignore them.
The next version of the site will address all of these concerns, and in all seriousness I think improved accessibility will have an extremely high ROI—one of the most significant of any of our redesign goals.
Share:
Thanks
| Quote: |
| * Accessible websites tend to be designed with standards in mind; this often confers faster loading times and more flexibility in coping with devices such as mobile phones. |
| Quote: |
| * If your site is designed with screen readers in mind, it will almost always have excellent SEO. In terms of what data they can extract from your site, search engines are basically blind users who can only understand pure text information, and can only attribute importance or structure to information based on parsing your markup. |
| Quote: |
| * Being a specialized application of usability, having an accessible website usually improves overall usability. For example, if you bear in mind that your readers may have cognitive disabilities, e.g. dyslexia, you will write clearer, simpler copy and present it legibly—something that all users will appreciate! |
| Quote: |
| * Accessible websites are not so much more expensive than inaccessible ones. Yes, they require more attention and planning; no, this will not add 90% to your project budget. 10% is a more reasonable estimate. |
| Quote: |
| given your existing knowledge? |
| Quote: |
| * Minor disabilities are not so rare as you might expect. Many people have dyslexia, low vision, poor co-ordination or problems focusing on text or information. These people are already struggling with (and possibly leaving) your website, and if you care about their custom you will provide for them. |
| Quote: |
| Disabled users are often very interested in and aware of their rights, and I am inclined to believe that as more companies comply they will become less tolerant of those who ignore them. |
| Quote: |
| The next version of the site will address all of these concerns, and in all seriousness I think improved accessibility will have an extremely high ROI—one of the most significant of any of our redesign goals. |
Share:
| Diane wrote: |
| Ouch - I had no facts and figures to refute "Why should I add 90% costs to serve a possible 10% population - that isn't good business." |
Then, if the site receives an accessibility compliant, it has to be retrofitted for accessibility. That can get expensive. See Department for Trade and Industry to see an example of Fujitsu doing this to a UK government department. (Follow the links to the blog entries by Dan Champion and Bruce Lawson for the numbers.) 6-figure prices for each phase of putting right what should have been done at the start.
In contrast, doing things properly from the start means it gets build once, with no retrofitting and performs better on top of all that. As my dad says: "Do it once, do it right." He's a welder and this is a widespread saying throughout the construction industry. Making something 2 or 3 times is obviously more expensive than making it once.
It is true that the best known reports make it seem like 10% of people worldwide have a disability. But 20% of Australians are disabled since the metrics about what counts for disability vary wildly across the globe. More developed nations (like Australia) have bigger numbers since their reports are closer to the better definitions, like International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
| National Center for Health Statistics, USA wrote: |
| Percent of persons with limitation(s) in usual activities due to chronic conditions: 11.8
(Source: Disabilities/Limitations from National Center for Health Statistics.) |
Table 144 in this PDF from National Center for Health Statistics, USA puts it nearer 15%.
So is their 10% value just a guess to try and undermine the legal requirement and social need for treating people fairly? It sounds like they are shifting the burden of proof onto you as a tactic to avoid their own prejudices being revealed. (I see this a lot in my day job as I do contract work across the UK web industry.)
In the UK, I expect they would be an "Equal Opportunities Employer". If so, the same ethics for fair employment determines fair access(ibility) to their service. I'm not sure what the relevant anti-discrimination laws are in the USA but Americans with Disabilities (ADA) and state law may apply.
Just imagine they were dragging their feet over accommodating people from other races! Such prejudice is illegal. Simple as that. See UN's Rights for Disabled People (Summary & FAQ).
Also, moving into a largely untapped 11.8% of the national population should be a no-brainer! As the Legal & General case study shows, business does earn the money back by doing a good job on the website. I recently rediscovered disabled people are treated 3 times worse and yet typical redesigns double usability. Well-designed sites can have double the conversion rate of their average-quality competitors.
Did you check the links from my previous message? The research shows usability is linked with accessibility. (This isn't surprising since accessibility boils down to "usability for disabled people" and disabled people are the same as everyone else.) The Legal & General case studys shows that together they provide excellent ROI.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
| Quote: |
| What makes them think it would cost that much more? |
Their wild guess is as good as ours, if I have no facts to refute it. Argument isn't fact. No point in just hurling opinions at them. [quote] Making something 2 or 3 times is obviously more expensive than making it once.[quote] I'm not so sure it is "obvious" and I'm positive I can't convince THEM that it is obvious when I've offered exactly zero in credible figures as to what it does cost. Remember that just the learning curve is a cost.
| Quote: |
| It sounds like they are shifting the burden of proof onto you as a tactic to avoid their own prejudices being revealed. (I see this a lot in my day job as I do contract work across the UK web industry.) |
| Quote: |
| Did you check the links from my previous message? The research shows usability is linked with accessibility. (This isn't surprising since accessibility boils down to "usability for disabled people" and disabled people are the same as everyone else.) The Legal & General case studys shows that together they provide excellent ROI. |
Thanks very much for your time. It has been very enlightening, a bit disappointing, but very important for me understanding why accessibility hasn't been better embraced. Mostly what I've learned is that the presentation of "why" is targeted at the "big boys" not the folks I deal with. The people I deal with mostly aren't megacorporations and they don't believe they have a high risk for legal action. They are probably right. They don't, for the most part, hire expensive web designers. They are struggling with their bottom lines and working hard to make every dollar count, and every minute directed to ROI.
_________________
Share:
In my experience, framing this as an opportunity to move into a new market turns the eyes of website commissioners into dollar signs. Like an old Disney cartoon! 
The $300 Million Button is a fun yet powerful example of usability providing massive ROI. (Accessibility boils down to "usability for disabled people", so I tend to focus on across-the-board benefits.)
There are usually speed advantages and reduced resource use that go along with using CSS instead of presentational HTML. I frequent reduce HTML from websites shown in the Site Critiques area to 20% of the original filesize. Future redesigns are faster and easier to build when the HTML is good.
If you're pitching to people who drag their feet and demand exhaustive stats while providing nothing but idle negativity, don't bother with them. Even if you find the stats they've asked for, they'll just start a new round of bulloops. Your experience and expertise is falling on deaf ears. (This has happened to me more times than I care to remember.)
Pointing to the disabled parking spaces and access ramps out front of the place you are pitching to sometimes breaks this mindset. It puts the necessity of accessibility in concrete terms. (Sorry for the pun, I'm a Brit.)
Pick your battles. Focus your energies where they are likely to be well received. In the UK, this usually means the public sector and especially local councils, since they really want to be inclusive and efficient. In the USA, Section 508 makes accessibility a requirement when procuring government software and services, including websites.
I pitched to ~20 places before I found my first client. I've had an ongoing contract with them over 3 years now. We've won 2 county-level awards for accessibility during that time. (Positive PR is another advantage to having a good website!)
"Do-gooder companies" are an easier crowd for accessible websites. Organic food producers, charities, support groups and suchlike all like to do the right thing. Churches, museums, political sites and academic institutions (such as schools!) are other ideas. They'll appreciate the importance of an inclusive website at a social level. Non-profits benefit financially in similar ways to for-profit businesses, too.
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Well, it is estimated that there are 56 million people with disabilities in the United States. They have about $375 - 400 in spendable income. I think that a lot of businesses would want some of that money.
Stephanie
Share:
Indeed! No numbers but with lots of experience, Nomensa say usability is more important than ever. The most profitable e-commerce companies are the ones with usable websites. They have great sales even during hard times because their users can complete tasks and return to do so again._________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum