Examples of weighting and scoring the accessibility requirement of a web site
Date: 28/05/2008
Article
Weighting
The following is simply a notional framework:
- Relevance to group requiring accessibility - 30
- Purpose/mission of organisation - 25
- Financial capacity - 20
- Reach - 15
- Size - 10
Notes
- As any determination of scoring may be the basis for alleging a breach of legislation, any assessment must be evidence-based.
- Definitions:
- Relevance - The extent to which the group requiring the accessibility is associated with the kind of content which a site carries; this can be both qualitative (the very great need of a few people) or quantitative (the need of many people); this, in turn, can be quantified if necessary;
- Purpose/mission - The purposes for which an organisation exists, including the remit of its content and audience;
- Financial capacity - The cost of rending accessibility as a proportion of overall turnover and profit;
- Reach - The number of people served by the site (as opposed to the reach remit);
- Size - the actual size of the organisation (again, separate from the remit.
- Other factors could be introduced into the mix such as:
- Alternatives - Does the organisation provide human and/or telephone services as an alternative to web access;
- Detailed legislative requirements, i.e. a law may render any further weighting and scoring redundant;
- Monopoly or one of many competitors in the market.
Worked Examples
-
Department of Work and Pensions
- Relevance - Statistics for the use of DWP services by VIPs is ascertainable and close to 100%. Score: 30 out of 30;
- Purpose/Mission - to serve all citizens; subject to DDA. Score 25 out of 25;
- Financial capacity - Very great. Score 20 out of 20;
- Reach - The Department's services reach almost 100% of the population. Score 15 out of 15;
- Size - DWP is large and any services for disabled people will constitute a very small proportion. Score 10 out of 10;
Total 100 out of 100.
-
Public Utility
- Relevance - The service is used by every socio-economic group although there are competitors. Score: 25 out of 30;
- Purpose - Is nominally to serve all citizens but is only one player in the market; in spite of mission statement, its primary purpose is to maximise shareholder value. Score: 15 out of 20;
- Financial capacity - Very great. Score 20 out of 20;
- Reach - Can be determined from billing. Score 10 out of 15;
- Size - Large but not the largest in the market. Score 5 out of 10;
Total: 80 out of 100.
-
Electronics Retailer
- Relevance - Most equipment offered is used by disabled group. Score - 25 out of 30;
- Purpose - To serve customers and make a profit. Score 15 out of 25;
- Financial capacity - High turnover, low profits. Score 10 out of 20;
- Reach - Given the number of competitors, very small. Score: 5 out of 15;
- Size - Very small. Score: 5 out of 10.
Total: 60 out of 100
-
Art Dealership in New Pictures
- Relevance - Even if all pictures were described in detail it would make little difference to the random VI visitor. Score: 5 out of 30;
- Purpose - To sell pictures to collectors. Score: 0 out of 25;
- Financial capacity - Providing descriptions would cost so much more than uploading the pictures that it would bankrupt the business. Score: 0 out of 20;
- Reach - Art dealers. Score: 0 out of 15;
- Size - Tiny. Score: 0 out of 10.
Total: 5 out of 100.
Application
As the weighting and scoring will depend to some extent on judgment, it can hardly act as a basis for a set of regulations. An organisation such as RNIB could, however, publish its weightings and scoring and set a limit as part of its accessibility campaigning, eg all sites scoring more than 60% must be accessible.
This is a much more complex arrangement than the current apparently blanket provisions but the reality is that such weighting and scoring is currently carried out by suppliers rather than consumers.