RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table)
I do see where Lachlan is coming from. I have recently updated two websites both of which were almost purely images. Speaking to the designer who originally created one of the sites it became apparent that his background in for print design had lead him down theis path. Otherwise my work could render almost anyway depending on the setting people have on their machines. was essentialy his attitude. I know its not true but it is his perception. The second one was not quite as bad, but I still only managed to get the job of effectivelky reskinning and replacing some of the images with text. Again it was the perception that the company's brand would in some way be trashed by allowing the web to render it. These are really difficult people to convert, yes they want a better Google rating (in fact any Google rating would do) but they are frightened of the change. It has however, lead to more work for me. Having just completed the re-skinning. I am now talking to them about a complete rework and they are up for it. Frustrating...yes, but we get there in the end. You really do have to hold their hand. I think we tend to forget that what we consider everyday tasks and challenges might as well be rocket science for these people. anyway thats my twopennarth. Giles -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy Sent: 27 May 2004 01:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table) Thanks folks for the great responses. I will certainly incorporate some of the things you've mentioned into my business behaviours from now on However, it seems fairly apparent that none of you have encountered the problems I'm talking about (except Marc, I think). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The kind of clients I get are clients who think this is a great site : www.canadianlakes.com.au And it does look quite nice. Pity about the fact that it still isn't indexed by Google after it has been up for around two years. And you folks can easily spot all the other problems such as the poor navigation, table layout, and the fact that many pages have no text on them whatsoever. They don't even use CSS to colour fonts or links (but who needs to when you can use yet another image?). A year ago, that site had no text at all If you still don't know what I'm talking about; if you've never encountered this, don't trouble yourselves. You're lucky Mike Kear says It's my opinion that if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant sites, then you're doing it all wrong. Standards compliance should give you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about standards yet. I totally agree with you, Mike, which is why I adopted standards and attempt to provide accessibility. Unfortunately, it is not working for me. So, what do you do? Thanks again, folks Lachlan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:52:27 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote: Sounds fair, so what would I do in a case where I identified the issues but they are ignored? I don't get it - who's ignoring them? You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do that. But I think it would be pretty rare to get something like that. If you have the sort of situation where you design something and someone else implements it, and they include inaccessible items which weren't in your original design, unless they are under your oversight, then you aren't responsible, although to cover your bum you probably want to keep copies of your design work :) ymmv Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Web Design, Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine Optimisation Brisbane, Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:52:27 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote: Sounds fair, so what would I do in a case where I identified the issues but they are ignored? I don't get it - who's ignoring them? You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do that. I am not specifically referring to my work, it can also be advice given about work others performed. Also, it could be things like I recommend not to use 8px for font width, I recommend not to use those color schemes, due to the low contrast but the client wants it anyway, etc... * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
On Wed, 26 May 2004 17:09:08 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote: I am not specifically referring to my work, it can also be advice given about work others performed. Also, it could be things like I recommend not to use 8px for font width, I recommend not to use those color schemes, due to the low contrast but the client wants it anyway, etc... Hon, if your advice is 'make it accessible' and they then don't make it accessible, it wont be *you* at risk, surely :) Particularly when you keep your correspondance to show that you *did* tell them to make it accessible, as above :) Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Web Design, Usability, Information Architecture, Search Engine Optimisation Brisbane, Australia * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
What about all the redesigns that I don't get because I insist on at least attempting to increase accessibility? What about all the bidding wars I lose because I'm going to take that little bit longer? My clients expect total revision of a page according to some obscence specs to take 20 minutes flat. They struggle when I tell them it'll take a few hours or a day (or whatever). If I tell them that what they want is inaccessible, they'll simply find someone who doesn't care I don't know what kind of world the rest of you live in, but my clients are NOT interested in the website as a specific form of media that has its own rules and regulations. They've never even heard of websites like that. They get a website so they can tell people that they have one. They don't expect anyone to actually use it, and anything which adds to the cost, time or hassle of dealing with someone to organise their public statement of being an important enough business to have a website is something to be discarded and dismissed So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually care if people can use their site? The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or 'accessibility'. Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things like this? How much is that costing me? Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility, my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes up later, I'm royally stuffed I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if I try to push the point, they are no longer my client So, how do the rest of you deal with this? - Original Message - From: Lea de Groot I don't get it - who's ignoring them? You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do that. But I think it would be pretty rare to get something like that. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Hon, if your advice is 'make it accessible' and they then don't make it accessible, it wont be *you* at risk, surely :) Particularly when you keep your correspondance to show that you *did* tell them to make it accessible, as above :) Yeah but are you sure about that? Lot's of contradicting statements say otherwise in this thread if I understood correctly. I guess it's like Mark said I don't think anyone could give you a 100% accurate answer on that. PS. Is that hon for honarable or honey? ;-)) PPS. I always keep track of suggestion that were dismissed by the business, i.e. !--- Suggested XY but business wanted YZ --- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Lachlan, So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care about accessibility? None of our clients, large or small, care or even think about accessibility, for the most part. That's partly because we don't make them sites with fixed microfonts or JavaScript or Flash dependency, so it never even comes up. You mentioned just doing it - that's our approach. We don't mention anything to clients beyond they fact that we strive to make the site user-friendly, which I think covers most areas of accessibility. And it's not standards - it's making the site work in different browsers. It's not 10% - 15% of users have JavaScript turned off - it's 10% to 15% of your customers won't be able to order from your competitor's shopping cart. The big seller for us is search engines. Everyone these days wants to make more sales, get more web enquiries, be found more easily. If we did have a client that wanted something that was going to make their site inaccessible, long before we pulled them up on accessibility issues we'd be warning them it would be affecting their Google ranking. That might be a good approach for you. Kay. -- Kay Smoljak Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/ Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Haha, I love your rant! It's very true. The question most asked by a client is How much does a website cost?, this reflects immediately on the client as having less than half a clue. Some (not all) of my clients I have dealt with have this mentality, they don't have a clue what a website is or does, their only concern is how much? and when?. To these people I don't mention anything about accessibility, standards or the like, I have grown to pay attention to my standards, and always make sure all the site is 100% xhml compliant regardless if requested by the client or not. With regards to accessibility on the other hand that is a different story all together, I am learning it at the moment, trying to apply the content from design separation method with CSS, and I am progressing quite well. It's a matter of unlearning everything I knew about layouts with tables and learning a whole new method. I think that once I am comfortable with building sites in this manner I will be able to produce sites in the same time frame as a site with tables for layouts. To sum this up and try to answer your question, don't tell your client everything, if their the kind of client who asks how much? and when, don't tell them about standards and accessibility, just do it anyway. I know it may take a little longer, but sooner or later it will become trendy to sue inaccessible websites, and the developers who are savvy with accessibility and standards will be the ones who come out on top. The developers who don't care are going to suffer. Just my two cents ;) - Original Message - From: Lachlan Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability What about all the redesigns that I don't get because I insist on at least attempting to increase accessibility? What about all the bidding wars I lose because I'm going to take that little bit longer? My clients expect total revision of a page according to some obscence specs to take 20 minutes flat. They struggle when I tell them it'll take a few hours or a day (or whatever). If I tell them that what they want is inaccessible, they'll simply find someone who doesn't care I don't know what kind of world the rest of you live in, but my clients are NOT interested in the website as a specific form of media that has its own rules and regulations. They've never even heard of websites like that. They get a website so they can tell people that they have one. They don't expect anyone to actually use it, and anything which adds to the cost, time or hassle of dealing with someone to organise their public statement of being an important enough business to have a website is something to be discarded and dismissed So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually care if people can use their site? The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or 'accessibility'. Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things like this? How much is that costing me? Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility, my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes up later, I'm royally stuffed I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if I try to push the point, they are no longer my client So, how do the rest of you deal with this? - Original Message - From: Lea de Groot I don't get it - who's ignoring them? You design the page to be accessible and if the client asks for changes that would make it inaccessible (and you really, really cant think of a way to do them 'properly') explain to him why its illegal for you to do that. But I think it would be pretty rare to get something like that. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
There's a saying in the sales business (/me thinking back all those years to when I was a sales trainer):Sell them what they want, and all the rest comes along for free. If the customer loves the car's hot stereo, sell them the hot stereo and the rest of the car comes along for free. IF the house buyer falls in love with the kitchen, let them have the kitchen, and the rest of the house comes along for free. IF they want an accessible site, sell them an accessible site, and the good design and easy navigation comes along for free. If they want a web presence, sell them a web presence, and the accessible design, good layout, easy navigation comes along for free. SO it's your job when you first meet a prospective client to find out what it is they want. And what they need. (Not necessarily the same things) Then you sell them that. When you build it, you build it as well as it's possible to do, given your cost and time parameters. Just because the client wanted this and that and something else, without mentioning standards compliance, doesn't mean you cant build a site like that. When you get a house built, you tell the builder you want this room, that cupboard, this kind of roof, that kind of bathroom, but he still builds structural strength, water proofing, adequate foundations etc in even if you didn't specify it in your requirements. And as to cost, I've found that building to standards has REDUCED my time (and therefore my cost) to build a site. By forcing discipline on my html code, and completely separating content and presentation, it's made many things more simple. And since the ongoing maintenance of the site is FAR easier, it's going to make the cost of ownership of a site over the whole life much lower than it would otherwise have been.It's my opinion that if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant sites, then you're doing it all wrong. Standards compliance should give you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about standards yet. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability [snip] So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually care if people can use their site? The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or 'accessibility'. Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things like this? How much is that costing me? Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility, my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes up later, I'm royally stuffed I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if I try to push the point, they are no longer my client So, how do the rest of you deal with this? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Hear Hear, Excellent Post! Another tip I have found to be very successful, is the following quote (and this was told to me by a client!) The client is not paying you for the few minutes it takes to change the site from blue to green, he is paying you to know what buttons to push and what methods to use to best implement this - if the client is billed $100 for a 30 second change that occurs site wide - they are going to think they got off cheap and you are going to feel like a bandit who got away with the king's jewels! Especially, since you did it so quickly for them. It's a win - win situation! You look good and so does the client! Sincerely, Brian Grimmer theGrafixGuy http://www.thegrafixguy.com 503-887-4943 925-226-4085 (fax) This reply to your initial e-mail is sent in accordance with the US CAN-SPAM Law in effect 01/01/2004. Removal requests can be sent to this address and will be honored and respected. -Original Message- From: Michael Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 2:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability There's a saying in the sales business (/me thinking back all those years to when I was a sales trainer):Sell them what they want, and all the rest comes along for free. If the customer loves the car's hot stereo, sell them the hot stereo and the rest of the car comes along for free. IF the house buyer falls in love with the kitchen, let them have the kitchen, and the rest of the house comes along for free. IF they want an accessible site, sell them an accessible site, and the good design and easy navigation comes along for free. If they want a web presence, sell them a web presence, and the accessible design, good layout, easy navigation comes along for free. SO it's your job when you first meet a prospective client to find out what it is they want. And what they need. (Not necessarily the same things) Then you sell them that. When you build it, you build it as well as it's possible to do, given your cost and time parameters. Just because the client wanted this and that and something else, without mentioning standards compliance, doesn't mean you cant build a site like that. When you get a house built, you tell the builder you want this room, that cupboard, this kind of roof, that kind of bathroom, but he still builds structural strength, water proofing, adequate foundations etc in even if you didn't specify it in your requirements. And as to cost, I've found that building to standards has REDUCED my time (and therefore my cost) to build a site. By forcing discipline on my html code, and completely separating content and presentation, it's made many things more simple. And since the ongoing maintenance of the site is FAR easier, it's going to make the cost of ownership of a site over the whole life much lower than it would otherwise have been.It's my opinion that if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant sites, then you're doing it all wrong. Standards compliance should give you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about standards yet. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hardy Sent: Wednesday, 26 May 2004 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability [snip] So, please, folks, while we're here : How do you get your clients to care about accessibility? Are you dealing with folks large enough that they actually consider the chance that they might be sued, or do they actually care if people can use their site? The same goes for standards, actually. I understand the concept of just doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or 'accessibility'. Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things like this? How much is that costing me? Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility, my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes up later, I'm royally stuffed I may be drifting off the thread here. Hell, I may have cut it! But I feel the point is pertinent : my clients don't care about the legalities, and if I try to push the point, they are no longer my client So, how do the rest of you deal with this? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting
Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Lachlan Hardy wrote: I understand the concept of just doing it. And that's what I do. Until the client asks about such and such and I let slip either of those cursed words : 'standards' or 'accessibility'. Whoa. Reign in there, fella! Who told you to go around doing things like this? How much is that costing me? I understand what you're saying Lachlan, but surely the important point is what your answer to such a question would be. I know that in my case the answer would be nada, zip, zero, not a penny extra. Standards compliant mark-up and accessibility hooks aren't extra features that get bolted on with an associated cost. They're simply a regular way of working (which, as I understood it, was the point of Jeffrey Veen's speech). If your client is going to get extremely pedantic about it then I guess you could answer that adding labels to form elements, summary attributes to tables and alt attributes to images could cost minutes of time. All in all though, they probably take less time than the duration of your bathroom breaks during any given project. ;-) As for valid mark-up costing more, my experience has been the opposite. If the mark-up is written in a sloppy or non-standard fashion to begin with, then the time spent debugging for various browsers/platforms increases greatly. Every time I have quoted for a job by mentioning standards or accessibility, my quote has been rejected. If I don't mention it in the quote and it comes up later, I'm royally stuffed I don't see why. Unless they're labouring under the misapprehension that standards and accessibility cost money. The truth is they're just good habits. So don't fear the money question. Just give them a straight, truthful answer. Oh, and while you're at it, you might want to tell them about the Search Engine Optimisation benefits of standards-compliant, accessible mark-up. In my experience, clients who couldn't care less about visually impaired human beings care greatly about making their sites accessible to the Googlebot. Explain to them that Google is essentially blind. Then they'll get it. HTH, Jeremy -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability
Afternoon all, One of the best quick overviews of the state of accessibility I have seen is: http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-accessibility/uk-we bsite-legal-requirements.shtml It covers the UK's DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) and has some handy links to background material , EU standards, the Syndney Olympics background, a review of 1000 sites, etc regards Giles *** Splash!PR Marketing Windmill Oast Benenden Road, Rolvenden Kent TN17 4PF t: 01580 241177 f: 01580 241188 THIS MESSAGE MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL: if received by you in error, I apologise - please tell me and delete the message * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table)
Thanks folks for the great responses. I will certainly incorporate some of the things you've mentioned into my business behaviours from now on However, it seems fairly apparent that none of you have encountered the problems I'm talking about (except Marc, I think). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The kind of clients I get are clients who think this is a great site : www.canadianlakes.com.au And it does look quite nice. Pity about the fact that it still isn't indexed by Google after it has been up for around two years. And you folks can easily spot all the other problems such as the poor navigation, table layout, and the fact that many pages have no text on them whatsoever. They don't even use CSS to colour fonts or links (but who needs to when you can use yet another image?). A year ago, that site had no text at all If you still don't know what I'm talking about; if you've never encountered this, don't trouble yourselves. You're lucky Mike Kear says It's my opinion that if you are losing business because you are quoting on standards-compliant sites, then you're doing it all wrong. Standards compliance should give you a competitive advantage over the other mugs who haven't learned about standards yet. I totally agree with you, Mike, which is why I adopted standards and attempt to provide accessibility. Unfortunately, it is not working for me. So, what do you do? Thanks again, folks Lachlan * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] legal requirements for accessability (bringing clients to the table)
The kind of clients I get are clients who think this is a great site : www.canadianlakes.com.au And it looks fine, for the kind of site it is. If I had worked on it, it would look almost the same, except it would be valid html and css and it wouldn't use frames. Just because you're building sites in a valid way doesn't mean your pitches to clients or the sites you deliver need to look any different (ok, they will look better, but an untrained eye probably wouldn't notice anything specific, nor should they). K. -- Kay Smoljak Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/ Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
