Does Accessibility Cost More?
What is the most accurate answer to this seemingly age-old question? Speaking for myself, I’d say it does cost more to create an accessible site. Cheaper alternatives exist on the world “wild” web, but not on my menu — I only make accessible sites and won’t entertain opportunities to make them otherwise. But my labors will cost the client more money than what they might spend on some low-end assembly-line site hammered out by a developer that doesn’t care. And I feel absolutely justified in doing so. After all, creating a through-and-through quality, top-of-the-line accessible site does take time, extra attention to detail, and a sound knowledge of the requirements. This knowledge has value, quality takes time, and time is money.
Some of you, having just read the leading paragraph, might be thinking that I’m stating the obvious. Well that’s my take on it. But it’s not obvious to all. Based on a lengthy exchange on the Web Standards Group mailing list, there was a divide. Some people felt that since they always make accessible sites and don’t offer a non-compliant option, that they shouldn’t be charging a premium for their designs. That their design are what they are and that is that.
But why not charge more? Accessible, standards-complaint sites are quality sites, and quality sites, like quality cars, quality watches, and quality everything else, tend to be more expensive. Cars and watches use better materials so that cost increase is fixed and expected, but quality starts on a cocktail napkin and follows a project from conception to completion. Quality is part of the entire process and this process has value. Since I work within this quality process myself, I want to be well-paid for knowing what decisions to make and how to do stuff right.
I know you will decide for yourself, but this is my sales pitch: Accessible, standards-compliant, quality sites should cost more than their shabbily constructed brethren. You may worry that you’ll lose business to your competition, but realize that you’re not really competing with those who produce inferior work. Your competitors are, one, your peers for they rival your quality and, two, client ignorance. To fetch what you’re worth, you must make the otherwise ignorant client understand the quality you offer, and how essential it is to them. You don’t have to get into a long-winded speech about web accessibility (that might be a mistake). Mention it, and then move on to the myriad other quality attributes of your sites. This should be easy as there are many.
If you don’t stand your ground — even though it is true that you may not grab some clients — if you compromise your quality or lack integrity, or, worse, become some price whore, worming your way through the seedy side streets of the commercial web, you’re effectively playing a role in shaping the future of the industry in a way that can negatively impact it over time. For everyone. I think we should want our clients to know what we’re really bringing to the table, and thus we should hope to be well paid for it.
Dan Schulz responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2007 at 1:57 am →
You know Mike, you probably just summed up the perfect description of the “drive-by Web designer” without even realizing it (the cheapskates who look for all the shortcuts to a client’s business accounts and then disappear into the night after getting what they want and leaving their clients with much to be desired).
Bravo.
Anup Shah responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2007 at 8:55 am →
Interesting post. As you said at the end, “I think we should want our clients to know what we’re really bringing to the table, and thus we should hope to be well paid for it.”
That being the case, from a longer term view, it would cost the business less to contract a slightly more expensive web designer/company that knows standards/accessibility etc.
How? That is, if they first got the “drive-by web designer” to do their web site for what would seem a cheaper quote than yourself, they may find that to get that site accessible, SEO-friendly, working across browsers in a maintainable way, etc could require additional cost. And it is almost always harder and more expensive to do as an after-thought…
Dave Woods responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am →
I agree with all the points raised in the article but I wouldn’t deem that I charge more to a client or that it costs me anymore just because I’m delivering an accessible website.
In fact it would probably take me longer to create a bad site purely because I try to build good sites as standard and that it’s good practice to use valid HTML, semantic markup and build in accessibility from the start of the design process.
What I do charge for though, is for my experience and knowledge within the industry. The years of training and research in the industry along with the careful planning and design of a project is what sets an accessible website apart.
Accessibility in itself shouldn’t cost anymore to implement but the knowledge and skill of someone at the top of their profession will, which in my opinion is what you’re paying for when you’re getting a top quality product whether that be a quality car, quality watch or quality website.
Joe Dolson responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm →
I’d be inclined to agree with this post if it wasn’t for the fact that many companies which do what I would call incompetent web development charge an exorbitant amount. I simply take issue with the idea of charging more because of the way you develop. I charge more because I’m busy, because I’ll spend more time on a project to make sure it performs the way it’s supposed to, and because I feel that my time is valuable.
I absolutely, 100% agree that high quality web developers are entitled to charge what they feel is appropriate for their work because they do good work. But “charging more” is a loaded term which I’m not comfortable with — charging more than whom?
I’m fine with charging more than the high-school kid down the street; I’m less comfortable with charging more than the world-class graphic design firm which has expanded into creating websites without hiring any competent web developers.
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: November 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pm →
Fair enough. Maybe it’d be more apt if I suggested developers who do things the right way don’t lower their prices so as to get prices down to what one might pay for inferior work just so they can more competitive on a dollar-to-dollar [substitute with you currency of choice] basis instead of a value-to-value basis.
Of course that’s where the real work begins: demonstrating and/or selling the quality and why it’s worthwhile to the prospective client.
The Cost of Accessibility at Alex Jones responds:
Posted: November 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am →
[…] Mike Cherim in his article Does Accessibility Cost More? […]
Jermayn Parker responds:
Posted: November 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm →
Totally agree, if you take the extra effort and time to produce a quality website you should charge extra. Time is money and its not like the client would gain from a quality website, they would with increase numbers who can visit and use it.
Robert Wellock responds:
Posted: November 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am →
They might cost more for in initial implementation in some circumstances but theoretically in the long-run should be easier to maintain and thus cost-less overall. However, it depends upon what you mean by the term “cost” is it time, or monetary matters… In many cases you’ll be surprised the cowboys charge more. I suppose really it is how you define “value”.
Recent Links: November 05 to November 08 at Alex Jones responds:
Posted: November 8th, 2007 at 3:01 am →
[…] Does Accessibility Cost More? - Accessites.org […]
Stevie D responds:
Posted: November 9th, 2007 at 8:38 am →
Whether an accessible website costs more depends on what you take as your starting point.
Apart from rare features like captioning video clips or building accessible alternatives to existing complex interactive wossnames, there is virtually no additional cost to making a website accessible. Yes, ensuring that the alt text is appropriate adds a few minutes, spelling out abbreviations or acronyms might add another couple of minutes, and there is a little bit more testing to be done, but apart from that - zilch. For a competent web designer, it is as easy - if not easier - to put together a page with correct semantic code, no essential functional Javascript and the rest of it.
So no, I would not charge a premium to deliver an accessible website - the minimal extra developmental cost would be built into the charges, but would be insignificant compared with the overall cost.
That is if you are starting from the premise of a competent web designer. But should I be charging more than a script-kiddie bashing out pages in Frontpage Express? Market forces should dictate that I do, because I am delivering a higher quality product - and because I have done a lot of research and training into accessibility and other aspects of design, that seems fair. But how often are the script-kiddies charging bargain basement prices for a cut-price job? Sure, some of them do - but some of them also market themselves as premium web designers. The problem there is that a lot of them think they are premium web designers! They think they are at least as good as anyone else here, so they are going to charge at least as much.
This is where we have the problem with web design as an industry. Because there aren’t professional standards, and because it’s a discipline that isn’t all that well understood by the general public, most people have little way of knowing if they are buying a genuinely top-notch product or if they’re getting something that could have been knocked together by a couple of chimps with a typewriter.
snowdog responds:
Posted: December 4th, 2007 at 6:01 pm →
Web design prices should be calculated for the whole process of designing. If you offer hight quality service you charge not only for one element (accessibility) but for complete website. So even if you are more expensive then others, it doesn’t mean that accessible designs are more expensive…