4 ms·

>it was one of the most lucrative dev jobs I did >there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility Which

by 34679 7y ago

>it was one of the most lucrative dev jobs I did >there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility Which is it?

charliepark 7y ago
Those aren't orthogonal statements. Both can be true.
- shantly 7y ago
  If, for example, the hourly rate is high but the hours required for a typical mom & pop site are low. Example: being a lawyer might be lucrative (just take it for the sake of argument) but their services might remain accessible to mom & pop business owners because they only need a few hours of lawyering per year, for the most part.
sbarre 7y ago
The two are not mutually exclusive. WCAG 2.0 Accessibility compliance is within reach of anyone following the most basic of best practices in web development these days. There are many powerful free tools for developers to use to test and validate their work as they go, and there is a ton of literature and thought leadership out there for anyone to find and learn from. OP may be referring to retroactively making websites accessible, since it can be a lot of work to fix something that wasn't built with accessibility in mind from the start. Just like adding a sunroof option to a new car is much cheaper than adding a sunroof to a car that didn't come with one in the first place. ;-)
- kls 7y ago
  Yea all the work I did was accessibility after the fact. For most cases it is just annotating what is already there. Sometimes it requires restructuring the way the page flows. It would be slightly more efficient to design for accessibility up front but it is fairly easy to bolt on after the fact.
kls 7y ago
I made $250 an hour, I could do a small website in 2 hours. I had more people beating down my door than I could service and I found the work to be mind numbing, because I like to write code and create things so I stopped doing it.

by 34679 7y ago

>it was one of the most lucrative dev jobs I did >there really is no reason for even mom and pop sites to not provide even a base level of accessibility Which is it?

charliepark 7y ago

Those aren't orthogonal statements. Both can be true.

shantly 7y ago
If, for example, the hourly rate is high but the hours required for a typical mom & pop site are low. Example: being a lawyer might be lucrative (just take it for the sake of argument) but their services might remain accessible to mom & pop business owners because they only need a few hours of lawyering per year, for the most part.

sbarre 7y ago

The two are not mutually exclusive. WCAG 2.0 Accessibility compliance is within reach of anyone following the most basic of best practices in web development these days. There are many powerful free tools for developers to use to test and validate their work as they go, and there is a ton of literature and thought leadership out there for anyone to find and learn from. OP may be referring to retroactively making websites accessible, since it can be a lot of work to fix something that wasn't built with accessibility in mind from the start. Just like adding a sunroof option to a new car is much cheaper than adding a sunroof to a car that didn't come with one in the first place. ;-)

kls 7y ago
Yea all the work I did was accessibility after the fact. For most cases it is just annotating what is already there. Sometimes it requires restructuring the way the page flows. It would be slightly more efficient to design for accessibility up front but it is fairly easy to bolt on after the fact.

kls 7y ago

I made $250 an hour, I could do a small website in 2 hours. I had more people beating down my door than I could service and I found the work to be mind numbing, because I like to write code and create things so I stopped doing it.