[goto11]

> That said do take accessibility seriously, it will never be justified by profits but doing the right thing is a feeling no amount of money can buy.

Why can accessibility not be justified by profits? If you sell something, lack of accessibility will cause you to lose sales. How much you will lose depends on the demographics of the potential customers.

[richardwhiuk]

Cost of ensuring a site is accessible is greater than the profit from the sales which you get in addition?

[goto11]

Yes but what is the the cost of accessibility? How much more expensive is it to use a <button> compared to a <div> with attached event handlers?

[lmm]

The cost of doing accessibility is the cost of doing accessibility testing. If you're not actually testing your accessibility work, using a button instead of a div is pissing in the wind.

[goto11]

Surely a button is more accessible than a div regardless?

[lmm]

Maybe, maybe not. ("Surely" using the browser's CSS animations would be more efficient than reimplementing them yourself in JavaScript - but if actually you benchmark it, the opposite is true). If you're not actually testing it, how could you possibly know?

[slver]

If only it were so simple.

[ctoth]

For what kind of site? If you just use semantic HTML as this article recommends, the cost is quite low for development, and your QA people should already know the basics of accessibility testing.