[access-uk] Re: Affordable Accessibility, was Re: Fw: [vicsireland] Digit-Eyes Audio Labeling System Advances Independence For Visually Impaired

  • From: Jonathan <digitaltoast@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:47:36 +0100

I think I'm beginning to see why products for the blind are often so
expensive!

I produce low-cost 5-page template sites to WACG-WAI Level 2 Priority AAA
guidelines (the same as Surf Right) and thought the Surf Right logo would be
a good thing to have to show my commitment to accessibility.

However, the RNIB quotation for looking over the site has come back at
£1,128 - or £225 per page, roughly £4.51 per word, for half a day's work.

I've applied for matched funding from the government, but this still leaves
me with £564 to fund out of my own pocket, and as this is a largely
not-for-profit venture, there's no margin here, and I don't want to push the
cost to charities up that much.

Secondly, this article might be of interest too (article summary below link)
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/6803

The RNIB has dismissed allegations that its refusal to endorse a cheap drug
found to prevent a type of blindness is related to the fact that it receives
donations from the maker of a rival, more expensive drug.

Research by Moorfields Eye Hospital released last week shows that the cancer
drug Avastin can help to prevent wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD),
which can lead to blindness. Avastin is significantly cheaper than the
current treatment Lucentis, produced by Novartis.

The RNIB was accused of conflicted interests, in a blog which followed the
research. The writer, Jim Edwards, suggested that there was “a connection”
between RNIB's status as a recipient of funds from Novartis and its support
of the company’s products against cheaper rivals.

But the RNIB steadfastly denied any allegations of bias. In a statement, the
charity said that its position on the drugs “is in absolutely no way linked
to any funding the charity might receive from pharmaceutical companies”.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. access-uk
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2010