FodnessMemo23

Software should be developed quickly, cheaply, and well (pick any 2)

> The dominant idea about software design is that it is not possible to develop software quickly, cheaply, and well all at the same time, and that only two of these options are possible at once. Therefore, “extras” of developing software well, such as standards compliance and accessibility, are generally cut due to time and budget concerns.

Software could be developed according to standards and with accessibility features if there was enough time or money

> There is never enough time or money, so accessibility and standards compliance usually get cut in major software projects. The smaller software projects are usually the ones that have the freedom to be able to be developed with standards and accessibility features (as odd as this seems).

It is the responsibility of third parties to create accessibility software

> Software companies don’t like taking ownership of accessibility features, especially when software suites like JAWS are available to convert speech to text. This ideology is driven by a lack of understanding of the needs of disabled individuals and gaps where third party software does not solve for their problems.

All "extras" (accessibility counts as extra) must be dictated by the customer

> This concern is actually somewhat legitimate. A software company that does more than the customer has authorized and bills for it will likely be dropped or not hired again.

Standards compliance is not as important as "making it work"

> Especially in web design, as long as the page renders properly in the browser, web developers don’t particularly care if their code meets published standards or not. Adherence to published standards are virtually essential for accessibility features in browsers to work properly, and a website that is built on non-standards-compliant code is significantly harder to update to be accessible than one that was built according to the standards from the beginning.

Individuals with disabilities are such a low portion of the userbase that there is no pressing reason to code for them

> This is a typical cost/benefit analysis exclusion. Ford used the same logic when they didn’t fix the Pinto and let people burn to death.

It is only a priority to design for accessibility on sites that have a high portion of individuals with disabilities as users, such as websites for the blind

> Obviously, if the website is designed to target a specific group, such as the blind or the deaf, the site will have to be designed with accessibility features for that group. Otherwise accessibility rarely makes it on the priority list.