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

Re: accessible banking:

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:27:29 -0500 (EST)
To: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
cc: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502030914480.11363@smart.net>

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, david poehlman wrote:

> I'm not bob, but I would posit that it is cheaper to use free linux with
> free upgrades/updates than it is to use windows even if you are econonicly

that is one major reason, but I guess there is something about "it's
mine"  this concept of basically renting software just doesn't cut it.  I
have been using computers and on what passed for the internet since the
mid 70's  it wasn't until just recently that Gates forced the issue of end
user agreements that allowed him and others basically control of your
computer.....no thanks.

> over advantaged.  It pays to save but the point here is really about choice
> and freedom which we do not have.

no the key point is accessibility, and that means TEXT!! based systems.
LYNX is avaliable for windows,. windows users can use PINE. many people
especially those dependent on screen readers need a text system.

the issue of accessibilty and operating system is being mixed when it is
two different issues,  however forcing one to use ANY specific non
provided system is not accessible.  PERIOD.   if a windows user running a
text based web browser because of disability must also be able to use a
website.  the key factor is if the website is not accessible to people
with disabilities,.

heck if it was an operating system issue I would just run mozilla and
emulate IE which effectively fools systems like that.   But if I am using
a text based screen reader, such as emacspeak. I still have to be able to
access the information and services in an equivalent fashion.  and the
telephone is not very effective for a person who is deaf/blind. for
example.  a braille output device is effective. but requires text based
operations.  not to mention other disabilites such as those who have
distraction type disorders (ADD etc) and who cannot effectively use a
computer with all sorts of "other things" happening and need a plain black
and white screen with nothing extranious on it.

ADA and the issue of Accessibility is functionial based not system based.
the services and products must be functionally avaliable,, the system used
is not really relavant as long as it is functionally usable to the person
with a disability.  unfortunately there is to the best of my knowledge NO
SINGLE SYSTEM that meets that need.

so the issue isn't operating system, or browser but rather the forced use
of a single system to access the services.  THERE IS NO SINGLE SYSTEM THAT
CAN MEET THE ADA REQUIREMENTS.  and I think that can be said almost


> Johnnie Apple Seed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
> To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>; "'wai-ig list'"
> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: accessible banking:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> To: "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: accessible banking:
> >
> > Kelly Pierce wrote:
> >>  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.
> >
> > What if said user could demonstrate that she doesn't have Windows, hence
> > no IE? Does the fact that the OS is available for purchase count towards
> > making Win/IE an effective means?
> > --
> >
> **it depends.  Up until the last year or two justification the justification
> for IE was an encryption and secure transaction argument.  While people may
> have been using different browsers, they were using them on windows
> platforms so they could use IE if they wanted to.  Also, if someone was
> using an operating system different from windows and the Mac, such as Linux,
> the barrier would be one shared by all persons with that operating system
> not just people with disabilities so it would be a mainstream problem not a
> disability related one.  IE and windows are accessible and widely used so
> there really isn't an argument for saying that people with disabilities need
> to use a different approach because of accessibility reasons, like with PDF
> documents.
> the issue of cost is an interesting one regarding Windows access.  The main
> alternatives are the legacy DOS system and Linux.  nearly all the blind
> users of Linux I have met are highly technically sophisticated and are Linux
> users by choice rather than by economic necessity.  The issue of system cost
> as a barrier hasn't really surfaced.  do you have some examples in mind?
> Kelly

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 Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:28:16 UTC

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