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

Re: accessible banking:

From: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:00:34 -0600
Message-ID: <004d01c508d3$5d844b80$0b0110ac@Kelly>
To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>, <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
Cc: <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

bob,

I wonder how many jobs are calibrated so the end user runs "Linux operating 
system, Lynx browser, and emacspeak text to audio adaptive software"?  I 
suspect very few.

The ADA prohibition against charging for an accommodation does not pertain 
to personal devices, such as eyeglasses or wheelchairs.  if the screen 
reader is on a public terminal, then the entity with the terminal is 
responsible for the cost.  If the screen reader is on a user's own machine, 
then it would likely be considered a personal device and the end user is 
responsible for the cost, just like a wheelchair user is responsible for the 
cost of the wheelchair in order to use a wheelchair accessible building.

Kelly


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>
To: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
Cc: <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; 
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: RE: accessible banking:


> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com wrote:
>
>> What I am thinking about is how the poverty issue impacts the security 
>> issue.
>> I describe it as a poverty issue since the statement "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." includes people without 
>> disabilities
>> and I believe is an attempt to include less economically fortunate 
>> members
>> of the communities addressed by the W3C WAI Guidelines.  Poverty is not 
>> an
>> accessibility issue unique to these communities as it impacts many 
>> outside
>> of these communities.
>
> but people with disabilities are more likely to be below the poverty level
>
>> The problem arises when an Internet user fortunate enough to have an 
>> early
>> 1990's era system attempts to visit a secure site.  This system is 
>> probably
>
> or those persons not using the Windows operating system, such as Mac,s,
> Linux and a whole range of open source products
>
>> not capable of supporting current encryption standards.  Does the secure 
>> site
>> owner have an obligation to provide this user access at the risk of
>> compromising security?
>
> however demanding that a user purchase an expensive piece of specific
> software is not a security issue.
>
>> Or does the "...appropriate for a task..." part of
>> this statement mean this era browser would be exempt from the site owners
>> obligation?  And if we make this exception, is it not also fair to say
>> users of "free" browsers capable of supporting current encryption 
>> standards
>> and 'modeling' IE browser behavior have access to any site optimized for
>> accessibility with an IE browser?
>>
>> Given that non-Internet Explorer browsers are now able to 'model' the 
>> behavior
>> of an Internet Explorer browser, a distinction between the product
>> Internet Explorer and the behavior of this product needs to be made.  To 
>> say
>> a site is only accessible with an IE browser can mean two different 
>> things.
>> Either the product Internet Explorer or the behavior of an IE browser is
>> needed.  "Free" browsers able to 'model' Internet Explorer behavior 
>> provide
>> the means for less economically fortunate users to access sites optimized
>> for the Internet Explorer browser without incurring any expense or 
>> exposure
>> to any of the Internet Explorer security issues often cited.
>
> however how does this allow people using specific adaptive software use
> the site,  for example a cheap (poor) visually impaired user. accessing
> the site via Linux operating system, Lynx browser, and emacspeak text to
> audio adaptive software.
>
> 508 (as does title II and III of ADA) prohibits requiring individuals to
> purchase anything other users do  not have to purchase.. if requiring IE,
> does that mean that the secure site must provide free a copy of JAWS ???
>
> Bob
>
>>
>>
>> Kurt Mattes
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: david poehlman [mailto:david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:37 AM
>> To: Mattes, Kurt (Bank One); kpierce2000@earthlink.net;
>> John.Carpenter@pdms.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: accessible banking:
>>
>>
>> I guess so but could you ellaborate on your question.
>>
>> Johnnie Apple Seed
>>
>> ----- 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 9:22 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
>> communication 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
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> CONFIGURE YOUR E-MAIL TO SEND TEXT ONLY, see http://expita.com/nomime.html
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
> -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
>   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
>    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net
>    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
>    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 03:00:43 GMT

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