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

RE: accessible banking:

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:14:49 -0500 (EST)
To: "Nissen, Dan E" <Dan.Nissen@UNISYS.com>
cc: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0502071113560.9594@smart.net>

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Nissen, Dan E wrote:

test in whatever browser you prefer, and let it degrade gracefully.

and test in straight ASCII text.

Bob

>
> 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
> IE
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Dan Nissen
> Manager
> 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
> 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 absolutely.
>
> Bob
>
> >
> > 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
>
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 Monday, 7 February 2005 16:14:47 GMT

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