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

Re: Coming to the end (was RE: accessible banking)

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:01:39 -0600
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: "'Kelly Pierce'" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5BD7A0E9.DE815B37-ON86256F9E.005604AB-86256F9E.00580BB5@us.ibm.com>
John said: "Given that *you* have agreed that forcing users to choose one 
tool over the
other is indeed discriminatory ..."

What?  How is that discriminating against the disabled when it is equally 
applied to all visitors to the site?  It's not discrimination when it is 
applied to everyone, maybe poor business from the consumer view, but not 
discrimination!  Is it discrimination to force all business to offer all 
the choices that any individual may ask?  I believe the bank should fix 
their web site's compliance issues, but not because of this so called 
discrimination reason.

I have really appreciated Kelly's responses in this thread and support 
him. "Effective communication" has now been added to my personal glossary.

For example: I don't have a civil right to only ask for slotted screws 
because I don't want to be forced to purchase a Phillip's screw driver. My 
brother had to buy a special screw driver to remove a broken seat belt in 
a vehicle, one that wasn't even compatible with another vehicle's seat 
belt screws/bolts.  This has nothing to do with being a minority, 
disabled, or in poverty. 

The civil rights discussion is not the intended subject of this list 
either.  But thanks Kelly for enlightening many of us. 

Regards,
Phill
(personal comments, not those of my employer)
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 16:02:11 GMT

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