TECHNICAL WRITING / FEASIBILITY
Feasibility Report
Three accessibility improvements had been proposed for a Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine webpage. This report asked what each would actually take to build.
CONTEXT
An earlier accessibility evaluation of the MCASOM M.D. Program Academic Enrichment webpage had already documented where the page fell short of WCAG 2.1. Three of those nonconformance issues were carried forward here. The page itself is where current and prospective students go to find dual degrees, global health, research, electives, certificates, and distinction-track programs, so barriers on it sit directly in front of people deciding how to shape their education.
CRITERIA
The report set its own three tests rather than borrowing a standard model. Financial Cost estimated the labour to implement and verify each fix, benchmarked against outsourced front-end development at roughly $50 per hour. Public Perception weighed each change against the institution’s stated TIES values. Resources Needed asked what would actually be required: CSS or CMS access, front-end expertise, and staff time for accessibility and usability testing.
ASSESSMENT
Each fix was priced and scoped against those criteria. Correcting a duplicate ID attribute rated Low to Moderate cost, an estimated $150, and minimal resources. Raising the contrast of nonconforming footer link text rated Low, an estimated $50, and minimal resources — a colour change in CSS and a contrast check. Improving keyboard navigation rated Moderate, up to an estimated $400, and moderate resources, since focus behaviour has to be reworked and then tested across browsers and devices. The figures are the report’s own estimates at the time, not quoted prices.
RECOMMENDATION
All three were judged feasible: targeted HTML and CSS work, achievable within existing technical and staff resources, and the report recommended proceeding before the next academic year. A later portfolio follow-up found two of the three issues resolved and one still unresolved, while noting that the review does not establish that the original report caused those changes. Weighing what a fix costs against what it is worth is ordinary technical writing territory, and the same analysis we run as a feasibility report.