w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire The Business Case for Accessibility - Thorough Review
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email address: shawn@w3.org
This questionnaire was open from 2018-10-03 to 2018-10-13.
16 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Business Case for Accessibility
- Annotated Bibliography to the Business Case
- Case Studies to support the business case for accessibility
- Other Thoughts?
1. Business Case for Accessibility
summary | by responder | by choice
Please carefully read through the current draft of The Business Case for Accessibility., keeping in mind the questions listed above. Please indicate your opinion of the effectiveness of the current draft and what may be needed for it to proceed to the final Approval to Publish. Thank you!
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I read the article carefully, looked at the footnotes, pull-out quotes, and illustrations and have no edits or changes to suggest. The draft is good. | 3 |
| I have carefully read this draft and have entered comments for Editor's Discretion in GitHub or in the comments section below. | 11 |
| I have carefully read this draft and have entered my strong comment in GitHub or in the comments section below. | |
| I need more time and have entered in the comment field below the date by which I will be able to give the time for this review. | |
| I will pass now and in the future on reviewing this article and leave the decisions about publishing the Business Case to the rest of the group. |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Business Case for Accessibility | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Howard Kramer |
|
I saw two small type/grammar issues: a genuine sense of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR.) [period should be outside the bracket. allowed the plaintiff to recover attorney fee [shouldn't this be fees?] Excellent resource. I thought it might be helpful for the last section to be named Resources and Next Steps instead of just resources. Someone wanting to jump to getting started would see that option in the page contents list. |
| Laura Keen |
|
I submitted a ticket for spelling and grammer |
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
1. Regarding case studies, the only examples are Apple and Google. Even if I understand the arguments, it may happen that some people will say: you only mention big companies who have the means to provide those services. Unfortunately, I cannot think of other good examples. May be it could help to have an introduction sentence explaining why the two giants were chosen for the case study. 2. In the case study on Google, I would be cautious with the last bullet: "auto-captioning for the deaf using machine learning is now being turned to broader applications". Many deaf and hard of hearing people complain that auto-captioning is a catastrophy. Sometimes it displays the contrary of what the person said. In a video, auto captioning transcribed the noise of the white cane of a blind person as applause. So I am not sure that auto-captioning is a good argument. 3. May be explicitly say what NPR means for non americans who do not know? "Case Study: NPR Weekly Broadcast", may be adding a footnote? Same for FCC regulation? I understand that it is important to show the benefits of transcribed videos for search engines, visitor enagement and so on. But don't we have figures regarding the benefits for people who are deaf or hard of hearing? Did they have reactions to this accessibility measures? 4. In case study on ADA, there is a word repeated twice: Website must be be made accessible to “individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops,..." 5. As non english native speaker, I had difficulties reading the part on ADA and web site accessibility, but it may be normal as this is law vocabulary. 6. I looked for information on the number of countries that ratified the UN Convention. As article sats the number of countries that signed and ratified in 2016, may be it could be interestd to link to a list of countries that signed and ratified the convention. I found a link with a table of countries, showing that Ireland ratified the convention in March 2018: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&clang=_en. Conclusion: Otherwise, I find the article clear, good documented with many intersting arguments. |
| Eric Eggert |
|
I put in my change suggestions as pull requests. It’s totally up to Sharron as the editor to take any of them: https://github.com/w3c/wai-bcase/pulls/yatil |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
| Kevin Rydberg |
|
"Who Needs" section, 2nd paragraph, "Business case" should read "business case" Between the Apple and Google case studies, I'm unsure of the word "wealth", maybe a change to something like "abundance"? Barclays pullout quote: since it is a quote it maybe can't be changed, but changing "everyone to work" with "everyone work" may increase readability Barclays case study: What does FTSE mean? Should it be spelled out? The three resources links returned 404s but that may be because of the "draft" state of the page. |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Rachel Comerford |
|
SUMMARY "This article defines the purpose and guides how to construct the business case for web accessibility that is appropriate and relevant to organizations of different types." rewrite as: "This article defines the purpose of a business case for web accessibility and guides users through the construction of business cases that are appropriate and relevant to organizations of different types." Do we want a citation for this? "Extend Market Reach: The global market of people with disabilities is over 1 billion people with a spending power of more than $6 trillion." WHO NEEDS A... Make Business lower case: "Determining which of the many benefits of web accessibility are most relevant in your business environment will help you build the most compelling Business case for your situation." CASE STUDY: APPLE "Apple engineers have been innovators in the accessibility space since the inception of the company, both willing to listen and work with outside constituents. As well, the company anticipates market direction by integrating disability needs into product development." Suggested rewrite: "Apple engineers have been innovators in the accessibility space since the inception of the company. They both listen to and work with outside constituents as well as anticipate market direction by integrating disability needs into product development." MINIMIZE LEGAL... Lowercase Business: "Consideration of the cost and risk of inaction is a critical aspect of any Business case. " SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE When a story is shared, is there a permissions agreement for sharing/posting or anything similar? |
| Amanda Mace |
|
|
| Stéphane Deschamps | I have reviewed a previous version but don't have time for this one, really sorry. I won't check “I will pass now and in the future” because I want to contribute when I can. Let me know if you need one checkbox to be checked absolutely. | |
| Lewis Phillips |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry | I commented on just a few things, but largely leaving to the WG. | |
| Norah Sinclair |
|
|
| Judy Brewer |
|
- Overall: Content is powerful; tone is good; graphics are good, thank you for all the work! All comments are suggestions only, for editor's discretion. - Title: As I was re-reading this near-final version, I noticed that almost all of the discussion is about digital accessibility, rather than accessibility for the built environment, transportation, etc. I'm wondering if EOWG considered "The Business Case for Digital Accessibility." But fine as is, if people don't want to revisit that at this time. - For the "Note" at the bottom of the Summary, I suggest using "...include web and mobile applications, and other digital technologies" which would make it more consistent with "web and mobile applications" uused elsewhere in WAI materials. - Copyedit suggestion at "to the legal and equity aspects, while..." (long, and hard to parse otherwise) - Spacing bug after benefits in Paul Smyth's quote - First three "Drive Innovation" bulleted phrases seem hard to parse, and "Interaction Design" maybe should be "Interactive Design" - Please don't use "blind patients" phrasing -- unnecessary medicalization - Phrasing about Apple and Google being innovators -- wondering if this could be tweaked so as to avoid sounding as though others aren't - Copyedit - I think "As well" isn't typically used at the beginning of sentences (could just use "also") - Phrasing -- also "would have on the blind" ...on people who are blind? Also, later, "the deaf" -- we try to avoid sounding like disabilities are monolithic groups - "Apple led the charge in striving" -- sounds less like vendor-neutral text than most of the rest of the document - Barclay's 2nd quote needs quote attribution - For the Forrester quote, maybe indicate "commissioned by Microsoft" - For UN CRPD mention, note that that there is more than one relevant reference -- you can reference Articles 9 and 21 - Public use of the Internet -- I think is much more than 25 years old. Do you mean public use of the Web? |
| Brent Bakken |
|
Excellent work on this. It looks so good and reads so well. |
| Andrew Arch |
|
1. Overall 1.1 Suggest that dates are added to the pull quotes as people move and organisations change (eg "Paul Smyth, Head of Digital Accessibility, Barclays 2018") Potentially important if this version has anywhere near the shelf life of the previous version! 1.2 Need consistency on the page with the placement of the reference superscripts - space/no-space before the superscript, inside/outside the full-stop, etc 1.3 Is the full stop inside "" at the end of a sentence with no full-sop for the sentence a style thing? 2. Summary 2.1 Suggest that [Note that “web accessibility” and ...] > [*Note:* “web accessibility” and ...] to draw more attentions to what we've include and that it's not just content pages 3. Drive Innovation 3.1 change [... effectively enabling them to “see.”] > [... effectively enabling them to “see”.] - ie move the full-stop 3.2 "... advantage of lower curbs ..." had to think twice about "lower curbs" - I presume "curb cuts" was dropped for good reason 3.3 "blind people/participants/users/students/plaintiff/etc" - terminology jars in Australia where we usually use people/person-first language ("student who is blind" etc) 4. Case Study: Apple 4.1 suggest [... the 26-campus California State University system ...] > [... the 26-campus California State University (CSU) system ...] to explain the use of CSU further on 4.2 suggest ... platforms. CSU System was soon able ...] > [... platforms. The CSU system was soon able ...] - Add "The" to sentence _and_ change to CSU system (lower case system) used earlier 4.3 suggest [... accessible touchscreen interface.”] > [... accessible touchscreen interface”.] - move full-stop to end of sentence 5. Enhance your brand 5.1 suggest [sense of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR.) As] > [sense of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). As] ie move full-sop to end of sentence 6. Increase Market Reach 6.1 Opening para - we categorically state the level of disability spending in the UK and US! Should we say those UK and US amounts are estimates? Like we do in "The global estimate of the disability market is nearly $7 trillion" 7. Case Study: NPR 7.1 suggest [new inbound links to transcript accounted] > [new inbound links to transcripts accounted] ie "transcripts" (plural) 8. Minimise legal risk 8.1 Consider adding a date to the bullet point about the European Accessibility Act, eg "European Accessibility Act (2016)" for better context 8.2 ditto for the ADA 8.3 Norway - consider [In Norway where it is now illegal for commercial websites to fail to provide equivalent access for people with disabilities.] > [In Norway it has been illegal for commercial websites to fail to provide equivalent access for people with disabilities since YYYY.] - also make for a better sentence :) 9. Case study: Winn-Dixie 9.1 Consider [The court decided otherwise, allowed the plaintiff] > [The court decided otherwise and allowed the plaintiff] 9.2 Should we expand WCAG in "meets WCAG criteria"? 10. Bibliography 10.1 - full SOCOG decision is at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/maguire-v-socog 10.2 AHRC has been talking about CSR for ages, eg 2008 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/corporate-social-responsibility-human-rights & 2013 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/corporate-social-responsibility Apologies for detailed comments here, trying to retrieve my previous Github access, but not successful so far. |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I read the article carefully, looked at the footnotes, pull-out quotes, and illustrations and have no edits or changes to suggest. The draft is good. |
|
| I have carefully read this draft and have entered comments for Editor's Discretion in GitHub or in the comments section below. |
|
| I have carefully read this draft and have entered my strong comment in GitHub or in the comments section below. | |
| I need more time and have entered in the comment field below the date by which I will be able to give the time for this review. | |
| I will pass now and in the future on reviewing this article and leave the decisions about publishing the Business Case to the rest of the group. |
2. Annotated Bibliography to the Business Case
summary | by responder | by choice
The article relied on a great deal of research and background reading. Direct references are footnoted in the main text. These same references as well as general readings that contributed to overall understanding are provided in the Annotated Bibliography on another page. Please review the Annotated Bibliography to the Business Case. and indicate how it lands with you in terms of the annotations, categorizations, general organization, and anything else you would like to comment on.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| Yep, looks fine! | 9 |
| May need some work and I left comments for editor's discretion in GitHub or the comment box below. | 2 |
| Definitely needs edits and I left strong comments in GitHub or the comment box below | |
| I need more time. The date by which I can complete this review is entered in the comment box below. | 1 |
| I will not have time to review the bibliography and leave the decisions about it to the rest of the group. | 4 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Annotated Bibliography to the Business Case | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Howard Kramer |
|
I think this strongly adds to the credibility of the business case argument and provides a great resource for others wanting to discuss the business case with an audience or an organization. |
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Eric Eggert |
|
I didn’t review the summaries, but the categories make sense to me. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
I could review it by Friday, October 12 (COB) |
| Kevin Rydberg |
|
"Absence of..." entry, TYPO. Dept. of Justice "sis" should read "is" Same entry, possibly a style guide issue: is "vs" or "vs." preferred for versus? "Reaping" entry, TYPO "diversity.Not" needs a space "Assessing" entry, TYPO "type:Archived" needs a space |
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
|
| Rachel Comerford |
|
|
| Amanda Mace |
|
|
| Stéphane Deschamps |
|
|
| Lewis Phillips |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry |
|
|
| Norah Sinclair |
|
|
| Judy Brewer |
|
|
| Brent Bakken |
|
Nothing to add here. |
| Andrew Arch |
|
full SOCOG decision is at https://www.humanrights.gov.au/maguire-v-socog The Aust Human Rights Commission has been talking about CSR for ages, eg 2008 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/corporate-social-responsibility-human-rights & 2013 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/corporate-social-responsibility |
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| Yep, looks fine! |
|
| May need some work and I left comments for editor's discretion in GitHub or the comment box below. |
|
| Definitely needs edits and I left strong comments in GitHub or the comment box below | |
| I need more time. The date by which I can complete this review is entered in the comment box below. |
|
| I will not have time to review the bibliography and leave the decisions about it to the rest of the group. |
|
3. Case Studies to support the business case for accessibility
summary | by responder | by choice
The editors reached out to many companies and organizations to share their experiences. Some sent information far beyond what was appropriate within the main article.These have been posted to a WAI-Engage wiki page and we will do more outreach once the resource is published to encourage others to share as well. The editors are of the opinion that real world experiences make the case stronger. Please review the Case Studies on the WAI-Engage wiki. and provide any comments about how this is handled and/or ways it might be improved.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I like it, no suggested changes to this approach. | 12 |
| I have some ideas to change the approach and have listed them in the comment box below. | 1 |
| I have some ideas for outreach to include greater submissions and have listed them below | |
| I need more time to think about this and have put the date below by which I can comment | |
| I will not have time to review the case studies and leave the decisions about them to the rest of the group. | 2 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Case Studies to support the business case for accessibility | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Howard Kramer |
|
|
| Laura Keen |
|
|
| Sylvie Duchateau |
|
|
| Eric Eggert |
|
I personally feel it would be better as a part of the resource than in a wiki, but I trust that there are good reasons for “hiding” them there, so I don’t feel strongly. |
| Vicki Menezes Miller |
|
|
| Kevin Rydberg |
|
|
| Kris Anne Kinney |
|
I think this is a wonderful idea and I hope more companies submit their experience. |
| Rachel Comerford |
|
|
| Amanda Mace |
|
|
| Stéphane Deschamps |
|
|
| Lewis Phillips |
|
|
| Shawn Lawton Henry |
|
|
| Norah Sinclair |
|
|
| Judy Brewer | ||
| Brent Bakken |
|
|
| Andrew Arch |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I like it, no suggested changes to this approach. |
|
| I have some ideas to change the approach and have listed them in the comment box below. |
|
| I have some ideas for outreach to include greater submissions and have listed them below | |
| I need more time to think about this and have put the date below by which I can comment | |
| I will not have time to review the case studies and leave the decisions about them to the rest of the group. |
|
4. Other Thoughts?
Please let us know if you have further comments or observations about the article or the supporting resources.
Thank you very much for your time and thoughtful consideration!
Details
| Responder | Comments |
|---|---|
| Howard Kramer | |
| Laura Keen | |
| Sylvie Duchateau | |
| Eric Eggert | I have been nit-picky but it has come a long way! |
| Vicki Menezes Miller | |
| Kevin Rydberg | Sharron, Louise Craig and I are finally communicating, we just have not been able to connect on a call yet. I will continue to work with her and keep you in the loop. Kevin |
| Kris Anne Kinney | I hope that, as additional resources become available, we can add them to the Resources section. I love the business case and I think if we get people and companies on board we need to support their "next steps" for then how to go about changing and adapting their website and applications for accessibility. |
| Rachel Comerford | |
| Amanda Mace | |
| Stéphane Deschamps | |
| Lewis Phillips | |
| Shawn Lawton Henry | |
| Norah Sinclair | |
| Judy Brewer | |
| Brent Bakken | I appreciate the hard work that Sharron has done on this resource. |
| Andrew Arch | Excellent work - glad to have been a small contributor as it evolved. |
More details on responses
- Howard Kramer: last responded on 4, October 2018 at 04:05 (UTC)
- Laura Keen: last responded on 5, October 2018 at 19:06 (UTC)
- Sylvie Duchateau: last responded on 8, October 2018 at 06:59 (UTC)
- Eric Eggert: last responded on 9, October 2018 at 09:25 (UTC)
- Vicki Menezes Miller: last responded on 9, October 2018 at 11:42 (UTC)
- Kevin Rydberg: last responded on 9, October 2018 at 14:27 (UTC)
- Kris Anne Kinney: last responded on 9, October 2018 at 18:23 (UTC)
- Rachel Comerford: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 01:54 (UTC)
- Amanda Mace: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 09:59 (UTC)
- Stéphane Deschamps: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 14:49 (UTC)
- Lewis Phillips: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 15:01 (UTC)
- Shawn Lawton Henry: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 21:22 (UTC)
- Norah Sinclair: last responded on 10, October 2018 at 23:50 (UTC)
- Judy Brewer: last responded on 11, October 2018 at 04:03 (UTC)
- Brent Bakken: last responded on 12, October 2018 at 22:01 (UTC)
- Andrew Arch: last responded on 16, October 2018 at 02:56 (UTC)
Non-responders
The following persons have not answered the questionnaire:
- Eric Velleman
- Shadi Abou-Zahra
- Kazuhito Kidachi
- Sharron Rush
- Jedi Lin
- David Sloan
- Mary Jo Mueller
- Reinaldo Ferraz
- Bill Kasdorf
- Cristina Mussinelli
- Kevin White
- Adina Halter
- Denis Boudreau
- Sarah Pulis
- Bill Tyler
- Gregorio Pellegrino
- Ruoxi Ran
- Jennifer Chadwick
- Sean Kelly
- Muhammad Saleem
- Sarah Lewthwaite
- Daniel Montalvo
- Mark Palmer
- Jade Matos Carew
- Sonsoles López Pernas
- Greta Krafsig
- Jason McKee
- Jayne Schurick
- Billie Johnston
- Michele Williams
- Shikha Nikhil Dwivedi
- Brian Elton
- Julianna Rowsell
- Tabitha Mahoney
- Fred Edora
- Rabab Gomaa
- Marcelo Paiva
- Eloisa Guerrero
- Leonard Beasley
- Frankie Wolf
- Supriya Makude
- Aleksandar Cindrikj
- Angela Young
Send an email to all the non-responders.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project