6 ms·

As a contract developer who provides estimates on my work I always include a section for ADA compliance, WCAG compliance, Accessibility, and a few others. I pro

As a contract developer who provides estimates on my work I always include a section for ADA compliance, WCAG compliance, Accessibility, and a few others. I provide time estimates and explain to my clients that I consider these extremely important things to do. My company has the ability, knowledge, and experience making websites that are accessible. Our clients often don't want to spend the money required for this task. This seems to assume that the developer is at fault for making the choice to not make websites accessible and not management or clients who don't want people to spend time on "useless" things like aria attributes. I preach about accessibility to every manager and client I meet. Most don't care because it "costs them money for such a small percentage of users".

Grumbledour 8y ago
Adherence to laws or special guidelines may take time and cost money, but isn't a professional working to spec what a client should be able to expect? Should a baseline of accessibility not always be provided and thus figured into the base price? Does adhering to HTML Spec for example cost a premium price?
- overshard 8y ago
  Adhering to HTML spec does not by default make a fully accessible website. White text on a white background adheres to the spec but no one can see it. If you mean adhereing to something like WCAG then that is a premium since it requires things like aria attributes, balancing contrasting colors for foreground and background and a whole slew of other things. Isn't it my job as a professional to tell my clients what I am doing and how much it will cost them? Isn't it my job to also explain the importance of these line items? I do this task. Isn't it my client's professional job to then take that information, process it and see how those line items affect their bottom line? If accessibility for the blind on an Aircraft Pilot app website for Pilots who need vision to have that job and use the app is then excluded is this a moral failing on my part or the clients fault? I would say no in both cases, they have literally zero visitors who are blind visiting their website.
  - Grumbledour 8y ago
    Your arguments seems reasonable and I heard it before, but I am not really convinced it strikes to the heart of the matter. Accessibility does include more than the HTML Spec, but adherence to the spec already provides a huge chunk of accessibility for free. And I don't feel every website needs to be 100% accessible, but people complaining about lacking accessibility often do so because developers disregard good practices and common sense. Yes, bad contrast is bad, but most disabled users know ways to fix this minor issue[0], but needing js to dynamically load basic text and image content that a screen reader than struggles with is just inexcusable and gets to the hearth of the issue, that ignoring accessibility also often means ignoring different user Plattforms and usage. A finely crafted website is not only readable by a modern browser and a screen reader, it will also very probably mostly work on older browsers, minor browsers/operating systems and so on. So every developer should have accessibility in mind when creating websites. Of course, being competitive, a shoddy developer who just bangs two wordpress themes together will always be cheaper than good craftsmanship, but in my experience, the problem is more often targeting the wrong clients anyway. [0] And, as sad is this is, the actual design is often not the developers responsibility, unless of course, when it is, in which case he is also to blame. ;-)
    - overshard 8y ago
      I agree with you, my only point is that accessibility costs something. It either costs time and money if you want to adhere to some standard like WCAG, it costs in hiring a better designer who doesn't make inaccessible design choices and understands basics like contrast ratios, and/or it costs in hiring a developer who has enough experience and common sense to know what is accessible and what isn't. Accessibility costs time and money, there is no way around this. Not all companies want to pay that money. I don't think the entirety of the blame can be placed on developers.
      - Grumbledour 8y ago
        You are right, it is not entirely free. I do see a baseline accessibility as necessary to call yourself a competent developer though. And you are right, a competent developer costs more than a bad one. But we are a community of developers here who, i would assume, think of themselves as competent. Should we not strife for a certain baseline standard instead of partaking in a race to the bottom? In the end, there is always someone that does a bad job cheaper than we can. I know there are often economical circumstances and we all cut corners one time or another, but we as the knowledgeable developers must be the one to educate the clients and put in the work, because no one else will.
- folkrav 8y ago
  > Should a baseline of accessibility not always be provided and thus figured into the base price? Does adhering to HTML Spec for example cost a premium price? If the client doesn't give a crap about it, in the end, a competitor will offer the service without these costs added in, and will win the bidding wars. Adhering to the spec by itself does not guarantee accessibility. It's not a question of "should it cost something?", but "does it cost something?", and it does.
DamnInteresting 8y ago
Perhaps you might have more success if you abandon the practice of separating Accessibility into its own line item, and simply include it as a given in your estimate. It could be worth a try.
- NedIsakoff 8y ago
  His competitor will provide separate quotes and win.
- overshard 8y ago
  I tried this at one point and my competitors just excluded accessibility entirely and won the "bidding wars". This is not a solution.
DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
I'd say the moral obligation of the developer is to be aware of the issue and be capable of delivering an accessible website if the client wants it. Asking for anything beyond that is unrealistic.
- erentz 8y ago
  “Asking for anything beyond that [from the developer] is unrealistic.” It seems realistic that we could (and IMO should) ask for it from the businesses though. Just in line with existing non-internet accessibility requirements we have for businesses, government organizations, public institutions, etc.

Grumbledour 8y ago

Adherence to laws or special guidelines may take time and cost money, but isn't a professional working to spec what a client should be able to expect? Should a baseline of accessibility not always be provided and thus figured into the base price? Does adhering to HTML Spec for example cost a premium price?

overshard 8y ago
Adhering to HTML spec does not by default make a fully accessible website. White text on a white background adheres to the spec but no one can see it. If you mean adhereing to something like WCAG then that is a premium since it requires things like aria attributes, balancing contrasting colors for foreground and background and a whole slew of other things. Isn't it my job as a professional to tell my clients what I am doing and how much it will cost them? Isn't it my job to also explain the importance of these line items? I do this task. Isn't it my client's professional job to then take that information, process it and see how those line items affect their bottom line? If accessibility for the blind on an Aircraft Pilot app website for Pilots who need vision to have that job and use the app is then excluded is this a moral failing on my part or the clients fault? I would say no in both cases, they have literally zero visitors who are blind visiting their website.
- Grumbledour 8y ago
  Your arguments seems reasonable and I heard it before, but I am not really convinced it strikes to the heart of the matter. Accessibility does include more than the HTML Spec, but adherence to the spec already provides a huge chunk of accessibility for free. And I don't feel every website needs to be 100% accessible, but people complaining about lacking accessibility often do so because developers disregard good practices and common sense. Yes, bad contrast is bad, but most disabled users know ways to fix this minor issue[0], but needing js to dynamically load basic text and image content that a screen reader than struggles with is just inexcusable and gets to the hearth of the issue, that ignoring accessibility also often means ignoring different user Plattforms and usage. A finely crafted website is not only readable by a modern browser and a screen reader, it will also very probably mostly work on older browsers, minor browsers/operating systems and so on. So every developer should have accessibility in mind when creating websites. Of course, being competitive, a shoddy developer who just bangs two wordpress themes together will always be cheaper than good craftsmanship, but in my experience, the problem is more often targeting the wrong clients anyway. [0] And, as sad is this is, the actual design is often not the developers responsibility, unless of course, when it is, in which case he is also to blame. ;-)
  - overshard 8y ago
    I agree with you, my only point is that accessibility costs something. It either costs time and money if you want to adhere to some standard like WCAG, it costs in hiring a better designer who doesn't make inaccessible design choices and understands basics like contrast ratios, and/or it costs in hiring a developer who has enough experience and common sense to know what is accessible and what isn't. Accessibility costs time and money, there is no way around this. Not all companies want to pay that money. I don't think the entirety of the blame can be placed on developers.
    - Grumbledour 8y ago
      You are right, it is not entirely free. I do see a baseline accessibility as necessary to call yourself a competent developer though. And you are right, a competent developer costs more than a bad one. But we are a community of developers here who, i would assume, think of themselves as competent. Should we not strife for a certain baseline standard instead of partaking in a race to the bottom? In the end, there is always someone that does a bad job cheaper than we can. I know there are often economical circumstances and we all cut corners one time or another, but we as the knowledgeable developers must be the one to educate the clients and put in the work, because no one else will.
folkrav 8y ago
> Should a baseline of accessibility not always be provided and thus figured into the base price? Does adhering to HTML Spec for example cost a premium price? If the client doesn't give a crap about it, in the end, a competitor will offer the service without these costs added in, and will win the bidding wars. Adhering to the spec by itself does not guarantee accessibility. It's not a question of "should it cost something?", but "does it cost something?", and it does.

DamnInteresting 8y ago

Perhaps you might have more success if you abandon the practice of separating Accessibility into its own line item, and simply include it as a given in your estimate. It could be worth a try.

NedIsakoff 8y ago
His competitor will provide separate quotes and win.
overshard 8y ago
I tried this at one point and my competitors just excluded accessibility entirely and won the "bidding wars". This is not a solution.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago

I'd say the moral obligation of the developer is to be aware of the issue and be capable of delivering an accessible website if the client wants it. Asking for anything beyond that is unrealistic.

erentz 8y ago
“Asking for anything beyond that [from the developer] is unrealistic.” It seems realistic that we could (and IMO should) ask for it from the businesses though. Just in line with existing non-internet accessibility requirements we have for businesses, government organizations, public institutions, etc.