[Accessibility_sig] business case for accessibility

[Karl Groves]

> 
> http://www.it-director.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid
=9258 <http://www.it->
director.com/business/compliance/content.php?cid=9258>
> Very interesting. Include hard numbers (usage, maintenance time, etc) 
> 


This article fails to live up to its title "Massive Business Case For
Accessibility".   The ONLY way to prove ROI for something is by giving a
true accounting of the net profit income related to the site before the
changes, the cost of the changes, and the net profit income after the
changes are made.  Any increase in true net income, after the cost of the
changes is subtracted, is the ROI.  "Natural search improved by 50%" is NOT
return on investment.  Improvements to site navigation - as measured by
often-misleading web logs -  is NOT return on investment, and not a specific
return on the accessibility changes.  Last, a reduction on complaints is NOT
return on investment either.

Saying things like "Take up of some financial products via the site
increased by 300%" is not proof, either.  Which financial products? How were
they marketed before? What were the issues preventing adoption of those
products before?  Last, what was the increase in net income related to that
300% increase in adoption of those financial products?  In my previous job,
I ran a banking website that generated more than $4,000,000 in gross income
each *month*. Marketing any previously ignored product on the site is likely
to increase its adoption 300% or more.  

I believe in accessibility. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I
create accessible & usable sites every day.  While Legal and General are to
be applauded for their efforts, we must remember that throwing about claims
like these is counter productive and, in most cases, likely to be seen for
exactly what it is: cooking the numbers.

Karl Groves