Re: Universal Accessibility

Well said, Lynn.

Let's go a step farther: Oftentimes, the web contractor isn't even the
designer/developer. We are increasingly hired as "implementers"- the client has
hired an advertising agency to create a brand for the company, and a "look and
feel" for all promotional materials, including the web site. If we are consulted
at all during the planning and design phase, it is only to determine whether a
particular feature is technically possible. We can broach the subject of
accessibility, but they may not want to hear it, and oftentimes the project is
way past that point. If we receive an RFP with mockup files, we are constrained
to answer the RFP- not create new issues. By that time the RFP has been
laboriously (and often expensively) developed in various committees, and
disseminated to web development firms. Believe me, at this point, nobody wants to
hear that they may need to recall the RFPS and start over- heads would roll. If
we try to complicate the situation, that is sometimes all that is needed to
eliminate us from the bidding, even though we are actually doing the client a
favor.

However, rolling with the RFP as written is not always a disaster. Because of the
fluid nature the medium, accessibility issues can be brought up later- after we
get the bid, finish the project, and publish. Once the feature has been running
awhile, we generate WebTrends reports, suggest and implement online surveys,
collate user Feedback (from feedback forms), and create a final report that
suggests further enhancements and refinements to the site, based upon hard data
that is specific to the feature. This not only makes us look good, it also
creates new work for us. And in fact, it is this ongoing consultancy, development
and maintenance that has enabled HyperGold to sail right through the dotcom bust,
unscathed.

Rob Wood
http://www.HyperGold.com

Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> At 8:45 AM -0400 2001/7/28, Michael R. Burks wrote:
> >lets talk about cost:
> >In my view the real customer is the user of the site.  If they cannot get
> >the information they seek then they will go elsewhere.  That is a high cost.
> >I would also suggest that organizations that continue to behave in this
> >manner may have other major problems not related to accessibility.  So
> >beware....
>
> Mike, I agree with everything else you said, so I cut that out, but I
> am not sure if it is true that "the real customer is the user" when
> you are dealing with a typical relationship between a web contractor
> and a site owner.  It's -very- difficult for the web developer to
> be in the sole advocate for the user, and ultimate it's not their
> job.  At best all the developer can do is try to educate the client,
> but when it comes down to it, the client is paying the bills and
> must get what they are paying for (even it's crap).  The end user
> of the site never pays the developer.
>
> --Kynn
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn(at)idyllmtn.com>
> http://www.kynn.com/

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA