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

RE: accessible banking:

From: Nissen, Dan E <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 10:03:56 -0600
Message-ID: <19D0D50E9B1D0A40A9F0323DBFA04ACCB46013@USRV-EXCH4.na.uis.unisys.com>
To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I don't think the issue with these vendors is one of loving Microsoft or
having some distaste of other environments, but one of investment level
and skills needed to comply.  I have been in deep lurk for a long time
on this list, but the last time I tried to get a comprehensive response
together on how to comply with the stated objectives of the members of
this list, I came up with 8 separate environments that needed to be
separately tested for usability, especially if you wanted to present the
"image" of the company reasonably effectively.

A text only site would presumably meet all the objectives of this group
but would be derided by most evaluators of web sites as "plain jane",
lost in accounting terminology, nerdy, etc.  So, the investment to get
to where this group would be happy is:
1. A text only site tested in Firefox on 3 or more platforms
2. A text only site tested on Internet Explorer on several versions of
3. The main site that works with both IE and Firefox for non-disabled
persons to meet the image needs
4. Test one of these on Macintosh under probably 3 browsers
5. Test under Opera in combination with several OSs
6. Test under Lynx on Linux and Windows
7. Test under ...

Each test might require over 100 different web pages be tested for a
typical banking application.  This kind of investment is significant to
the banks, etc. who need to absorb all this to get a fraction of their
clients going.  Yes, it is a "right" to have access, but it is not clear
exactly how much of this is required to provide the rights.

And, I'm sure I can find a lot of people who would assert that Linux is
only cheaper if your time is very inexpensive.

We need good standards that allow us to not have to do all of this
testing and building of separate solutions, and we need to work hard on
the vendors of browsers to do the needed work to make them compatible.

Dan Nissen 
Recovery, Optimization, and Development Products 
Unisys ClearPath 2200 Systems
Roseville, MN USAmerica 
Net2 524-5131  +1(651)635-5131 
Fax +1(651)635-5544 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Access Systems
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:27 AM
To: david poehlman
Cc: Kelly Pierce; Patrick H. Lauke; 'wai-ig list'
Subject: Re: accessible banking:

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
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
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
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 absolutely.


> 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


"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,
    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 Monday, 7 February 2005 16:04:29 UTC

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