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

Re: accessible banking:

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:22:11 -0500
Message-ID: <003701c509f3$617a38f0$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "'John Carpenter'" <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

So, If I cannot use windows, if I cannot use a computer, the same 
functionality should be available to me.  Perhaps when the ada is re-written 
it should be made more clear on this point.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>; "'david poehlman'" 
<david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "'John Carpenter'" 
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:




From: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
To: "'Kelly Pierce'" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; "'david poehlman'"
<david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "'John Carpenter'"
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: accessible banking:


Exactly.  The biggest issue is those institutions which think that as long
as they meet the "technical" requirements, their obligations end there.
They see it as an "obligation", as opposed to the "right thing to do". The
purpose of this type of legislation is to try and mold society to one which
is more inclusive, less discriminatory - fairer.

To me, the bottom line is this:  nobody has conclusively proven why the
institution *cannot* make their site accessible to other browsers. I know my
bank's  on-line banking site "works" in other browsers, so there is existing
proof that it *can* be done...  I suspect that if ever it went before the
courts, a strong case could be made against the bank in question.

JF

**John, I believe we are talking about American courts interpreting the ADA
not Canadian ones.  Because a blind computer user can successfully conduct
transactions on a website with IE, they would consider that effective
communication and be little swayed by the arguments presented here.  one
does not have the right to sue for the communication method of their choice,
only for an effective means of independently sending and receiving
communications.  for example, written material can be presented to a blind
person in Braille, in an audio recording, such as on a cassette or CD, large
print, or in a digital file such as in ASCII or in a Word Processing format.
Choice of format is entirely at the discretion of the provider of the
information not the blind person.  the person's "choice" is only relevant
when the provided communication is not effective, such as providing a
Braille document to a person who doesn't read Braille and wants information
in an audio recording.

Kelly
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 13:22:47 GMT

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