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 20:47:21 -0500
Message-ID: <01f701c508c9$2459f0d0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>, <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Under My deffinition, they are falling way short because we are forced to 
run something on those 95 percent of computers that we might otherwise not 
run.  I think we need to take another look at this deffinition.  I think we 
need to take a look at things other than the desktop/laptop senario and 
wander out there in the croud, walk into a phone booth if we can find one, 
check in a blackburry or a handspring or a palm or whatever and start to 
really live.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>; <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; 
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


Indeed, under David's definition the major financial institutions are
delivering the access he seeks.  the promise of the technology of the
Internet allowing anywhere, anytime instantaneous delivery of services and
information to people with disabilities is here.  the goal is possible using
software running on more than 95 percent of computers in use today.
Obviously, based on his past statements, he finds this situation
unacceptable.

Kelly


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
To: <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>;
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: accessible banking:


Does "The law should read that anyone should be able to access
and fully use any tehnology appropriate for a task and which fits their
needs." include any browser capable of connecting to the Internet?

Kurt Mattes


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of david poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:10 AM
To: Kelly Pierce; John Carpenter; wai-ig list
Subject: Re: accessible banking:



Kelly and all, the laws are flawed in this fashion.  they assume lack of
people function when the issue is lack of technology function.  I just read
a piece on this in fact from the ncd called "righting the ada" which sadly
carries this mal assumption forward.  90 ercent or more of the issues we
face are artificial and the sooner they are dealt with, the better.  It is
as you point out 2005 and was not right in any age to task technology with
setting the tone for people's lives but rather technology should be tasked
to serve us.

I did state in my message that this has nothing to do with law, but perhaps
I was in error.  The law should read that anyone should be able to access
and fully use any tehnology appropriate for a task and which fits their
needs.  There are many places in the country and in the world where is is a
mis fit and always will be.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "John
Carpenter" <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:




From: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; "John Carpenter"
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


> Part of accessibility is choice.  I should be able to access any web site
> with any combination of user agent and technology accessibly and it be
> accessible.  Is this a tall order?  Yes, is it necessary, yes.

**Not under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  As long as the means of
communicatdøion made available to you is effective, I.e. allowing you to
complete a certain task, then the bank has fulfilled its access obligations.
Under the ADA, courts view access by functional performance, not by process.
they also don't consider optimal or preferential means but the means that is
sufficient to complete the 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.

Kelly










**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 01:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:19 GMT