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 21:09:52 -0600
Message-ID: <006b01c508d4$aa177480$0b0110ac@Kelly>
To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>, <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>


yes, the court ordered the transit system to design an accessible website. 
it didn't order the transit system to give away free screen readers, as you 
suggested.

Kelly


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
Cc: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>; <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; 
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Kelly Pierce wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> besides myself I,ve only met one other person but I was using it more as
> an example of  an open source solution to high priced proprietary
> software.
>
>> 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.
>
> not so,  Transit sytems have lost lawsuits on having inaccessible
> websites.    and there is a requirement for the text alternative, we
> discuss ad nausiam on this groupp
>
> Bob
>
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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 03:09:59 GMT

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