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

Coming to the end (was RE: accessible banking)

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:50:57 -0500
To: "'Kelly Pierce'" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c50ac0$8eba4da0$6601a8c0@bosshog>

Kelly Pierce wrote:
> **They are indeed. [discriminating against me - JF]  Being discriminating
about services > and product
> offerings are hallmarks of great businesses.  As mentioned
> earlier it is not
> a human rights violation.

Perhaps, but (IMHO) Stupid business.

> **they can indeed make their site usable with other browsers
> but the likely
> claim is that IE is effective communication so the burden
> then shifts to the
> claimant to show that IE is not effective.

...and so, it comes down to that - a legal challenge before the courts.

Kelly, I will conclude this debate with my final thoughts.  

Given that *you* have agreed that forcing users to choose one tool over the
other is indeed discriminatory (whether it is covered directly by ADA or
not), given that a banking institution can "...indeed make their site usable
with other browsers...", given the potential "bad press" fallout that said
bank could face, given that the W3C P1 and P2 checkpoints are supposed to be
adhered to by a certain bank (making browser specific code a no-no)...
There have been enough posts to this thread positing that from a
technological and "choice" perspective insisting on one tool over another
*might* be considered undue hardship (there *were* other voices than mine),
given that the only real definitive way of answering this is to face a legal
challenge in what many consider to be the most litigious  country in the
world (and probably the most expensive too), etc. etc....

How can you sit there and continue to argue this point?  You are right in
one thing - until the legal challenge is addressed by the courts, we can't
know "for sure".  The "antidotal evidence" would lead one to conclude that
the defendant (the bank) would probably not be successful, however current
international case law seems to be split 50 / 50 but leaning our way [1].
If I were a member of the board of directors/governors (whatever) of said
bank, would I really want to roll these dice?

John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   1.866.932.4878 (North America) 

[1] Wins = 	Maguire v. SOCOG (aka Sydney Olympics) - a TKO  (although,
by the time all was said and done, the Sydney Olympics were but a memory...)

		New York State v. Ramada.com and Priceline.com 
		- a "no fault" victory (détente?) for our side.  Ramada.com
and Priceline.com paid the State of New York $40,000 and $37,500,
respectively, and agreed to "fix" their sites; in return the State's
Attorney's office "stood down".

  Losses =  Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co. 
		- <sigh>... And as an additional footnote, the U.S. District
Court - 
Southern District of Florida's Motion To Dismiss is available *only* as a
PDF from official sources
34d24.pdf - I have it HTML'd if anybody wants it, contact me off list)

... There are other related cases, but this is not the forum.  Try Google
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 13:51:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC