W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: accessible banking:

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <01f401c508c8$bd31b500$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Kelly, Your telephone analogy is not exactly bang on.  There are many ways 
to access the internet and choice is the issue here sometimes, it is forced 
upon us by circomstance.  If my work place uses netscape and I need to 
access a web that will only allow me to use ie to conduct business for my 
employer on it, I have a problem that is more than mere decision becaue I 
wanna.  A phone is basically a phone and if you can perform all the 
functions of a phone with it, that's all you need.  So, yes, this is a cost 
issue for everyone and it is also a double edged sword because I can by 
virtue of the ada claim that an institution is not in compliance becaue I 
cannot use my perfectly good tools to do my employer's biddding through that 
institution.  Incidentally, it may be well possible for someone not needing 
assistive technology to do this work just fine with the technology that the 
employer provides for good reasons of their own and that would indeed make 
the case stronger against the institution not the employer.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:

From: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:08 AM

> On  1 Feb, Kelly Pierce wrote:
>> specified task.  You may choose not to use Internet Explorer, but in
>> 2005 I have not seen an argument saying that it is unreasonable or
>> insufficient to require people with disabilities only to use Internet
>> Explorer to access online banking services.  It seems like you want
>> access beyond what is required beyond that of the ADA.
>  Are we to understand that the ADA allows a bank to require a solution
>  provided by one, not associated by the bank, commerical actor? Is
>  the cost of operating system and hardware covered by the bank?
>  If solution A is delivered ONLY by commercial actor B, and cost money,
>  then yes, it would seem -entirely- unreasonable and insufficient. Can
>  you elaborate?

**sure Tina.  it sounds like a bias toward socialism is clouding an
understanding on this point.  The ADA indeed does not permit charging an
additional cost in order to obtain an accommodation.  However, if everyone
who uses a particular service, disabled and non-disabled alike, need to
purchase certain kinds of equipment or other items, such as clothing, to
utilize the service then it is not considered discrimination.  In this
instance, for anyone, disabled or non-disabled, to access information on a
website, one must use a computer and the computer must be configured with an
operating system.  As this cost burden is placed on everyone alike it is not
considered discrimination.  This is similar to the fact that banks do not
need to provide telephones for their automated telephone banking services to
be ADA compliant as everyone needs to use a telephone to use this service.

personally, I have no problem with commercial enterprises inventing,
creating, and innovating.  When entrepreneurs have the freedom and can
receive adequate reward to pursue their dreams and ideas, great things can
come.  if I waited around for the government to develop a screen reader, I
think I would still be waiting.

Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 01:45:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:30 UTC