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

Re: accessible banking:

From: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:05:05 -0600
Message-ID: <000b01c50994$c7ac1300$0b0110ac@Kelly>
To: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>


You really are raising not so much a legal argument but a policy one.  As 
technology became an essential part of independence for people with 
disabilities during the 1990s, much information technology was not and 
remains uncovered by traditional funding streams used by western 
industrialized countries.  specifically for the blind, access to a computer 
now costs more than a new computer itself and for those people without a job 
or a big bank account, access to the website includes the cost of the access 
technology.  the law considers these personal devices and medical-based 
funding streams say that this technology is not medically necessary.  Here 
in the United States, it was only in the late 1980 to the early 1990s that 
government funded a teletypewriter machine for the hearing impaired so those 
who could not use a telephone could access the telephone network at no 
additional cost.  similarly, our government mandated captioning decoders in 
all televisions.  We have a way to go before the World Wide Web penetrates 
as many homes as televisions and telephones do today.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:

> On  1 Feb, Kelly Pierce wrote:
>>>  If solution A is delivered ONLY by commercial actor B, and cost
>>>  money, then yes, it would seem -entirely- unreasonable and
>>>  insufficient. Can you elaborate?
>> **sure Tina.  it sounds like a bias toward socialism is clouding an
>> understanding on this point.  The ADA indeed does not permit charging
>  This piece I don't understand. Can you elaborate?
>> considered discrimination.  This is similar to the fact that banks do
>> not need to provide telephones for their automated telephone banking
>> services to be ADA compliant as everyone needs to use a telephone to
>> use this service.
>  Correct. And as long as that telephone follows the standards that
>  exist for such communication, the specific -brand- of telephone
>  doesn't matter.
>  A better comparison would be that bank A requires that you purchase
>  special phones from company B, and ONLY company B.
>> personally, I have no problem with commercial enterprises inventing,
>> creating, and innovating.  When entrepreneurs have the freedom and can
>> receive adequate reward to pursue their dreams and ideas, great things
>  I'm sure.
> -- 
> -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
>   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
>   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 02:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:30 UTC