Audio stylesheets, I’m afraid, I’d put more in the “pointless” category, since they aren’t really supported by anything…

My take on the charging thing is not to charge for standard accessibility, because it should be taken as read. By that, I mean that you automatically and instinctively use semantic code, properly alt-ed images, skip links, etc. And you probably charge slightly more for your services than a shoddy cowboy would - you have every right to.

Yes, a Mercedes costs more than a Kia, but it isn’t as though MB dealers say “the basic car costs 20k, and then another 20k for Mercedes-quality” - you just buy a car for 40k, which you know is going to be a really good one. That should be the same with a website. You can go to a cowboy and get a shoddy job, or you can go to a quality designer and get a good job.

Standard accessibility is not, and should not be, a bolt-on extra. Don’t separate it from all the other elements of good practice you use. Yes, there may be accessibility features that are “extras”, that would be listed as options with higher charges. I’m thinking here of things like multimedia subtitles/captioning, alternative or audio stylesheets etc, the kind of things that are not usually necessary but a keen accessibility proponent might want.

They may tend to continue in their usual tracks, producing lower-quality code for most sites; and, when the request comes, introducing features they think will add accessibility to the site at an extra cost.

It’s just a backwards way to think…

Exactly. We are all in agreement on this, to be sure.

Those who haven’t yet embraced standards, however, may have seen the economic benefits to offering accessibility; but not have fully understood the principles. They may tend to continue in their usual tracks, producing lower-quality code for most sites; and, when the request comes, introducing features they think will add accessibility to the site at an extra cost.

It’s just a backwards way to think…

That being said, I never really thought specifically about the relationship between accessible/standards compliant and the price I charge. Indirectly, however, I believe that my sites are better than many and have always charged a premium for the product that I produce. But I certainly never think about coding a site full of garbage code and charging less for it. To me, the two issues just meld into one and the price of my sites follows suite.

On the other hand, I still have much to learn and don’t do things flawlessly, but at least I am on the right learning track and understand the issues, for the most part.

Great article.

I know you’re saying that it should just be built in and not an add-on, and I agree with that, but I feel the price should be more.

And I don’t disagree with that, either. I guess the distinction is subtle, but I’m entirely willing to have people pay more for my skill and experience; and not at all willing for people to pay more for their site to be accessible.

I’m simply opposed to the concept of pricing which is based on accessibility as a feature. Skill and experience? Absolutely!

A professional level of understanding of how to maintain the inherent accessibility of a well-built web site and enhance and empower it from there — - and all that goes with that, you know, all that good stuff that is the by-product of making a quality site — commands a better price. I’m not saying a good developer would offer an off-the shelf site with an accessible “option,” as you were saying, but that all the good developer’s sites would be accessible. No options. No compromise. And no discounted version, either.

Doing what you do, Joe, is a skill and you should expect to be paid what your paid, and it the point is that should be more than the guy churning out crap. I do! It’s not a huge amount of work maintaining accessibility as you indicated, but it takes hard-earned sought-after knowledge to really be good at it and to turn out a mighty fine product. Moreover it does take more time to test, and dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, and struggle over taking commercial scripts and applications — - that web 2.0 stuff people want — - and fixing them because they’re not built right to begin with.

It is some work. It takes more skill. And the product is of better quality on many levels. For this I want to be paid more than the guy who slices comps and throws the slices into tables. Don’t you? And if it has to be explain (why you command more money than OneMinuteSites-R-us.com).

To further exemplify what I mean take the car industry, Mercedes and Kia, specifically. A Mercedes is of higher quality than a Kia. It costs more than Kia. It should costs more than Kia. I can’t imagine Mercedes saying they shouldn’t charge more because the consumer doesn’t get it or can’t feel and see the quality difference. Granted it’s a harder showing for web sites, but it’s there. But even when it is obvious, like it is in my car comparison, Mercedes purposely exudes quality in their merchandising and advertising to convince and educate the consumer. This, I feel, correlates to what we should strive for in the industry. We should advertise, promote, show, and teach the difference. Doing this, over time, should generate a true demand for accessible web sites. One that can be taken to the bank.