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 22:56:58 -0600
Message-ID: <00c801c508e3$a09588c0$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>

As I hinted earlier, perhaps we can sit down together and review the Sunday 
help wanted ads and see how many jobs use windows and how many jobs use 
Linux.  My guess is that nearly all employers use windows so many employed 
blind persons would rather learn one operating system than two.

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 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


> 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 04:57:07 GMT

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