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

Re: accessible banking:

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:25:42 -0500 (EST)
To: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
cc: Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com, david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com, John.Carpenter@pdms.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502012218110.31331@smart.net>

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Kelly Pierce wrote:

> I remember how this was a big issue in the late 1990s.  the mainstream was
> using Netscape navigator or Internet Explorer with Windows and many blind
> computer users were still using Lynx on a Unix shell with DOS.  Switching to
> Windows meant buying a completely new computer with new application software
> and a new screen reader, which cost considerable money.  nearly all of those
> users have transitioned from DOS to windows in the past five to seven years
> as they needed to replace their computer systems.  At a certain point
> though, I wonder how long the far trailing edge of technology needs to be
> supported.

Linux, Lynx and emacspeak are all still fully supported and Linux FC3 is
as new as last month.

> I'm happy to be in Windows and not have to type commands for everything I do
> online like I needed to do with Unix.  Ceaseless typing and occasional
> consulting of reference cards was getting old.

different folks, different strokes....forcing one to buy new computers
and software just to use a site that should be accessible.  just because
you don't like typing commands doesn't mean another person might hate
using a mouse, I touch type at 65wpm and hate mice, they slow me down and
they are very hard to use in text, heck half my software won't even work
with a mouse even if I wanted to.   and for what it is worth I have less
than $35 in all the software on my computer, I own it all and it is all
legal, why in the name of all that is sensible would I want to hobble my
computer with bloated insecure software that costs a fortune and forces me
to keep buying more and more stuff I don't want or need.
   and I am not alone, more and more folks are making that decision every
day.


Bob

>
> 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 9:55 AM
> Subject: RE: accessible banking:
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> 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?  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.
>
>
> 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 03:25:43 GMT

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