Re: Judgment in the SouthWest case.

'Tis a bit like the concept of separate but equal.  We segregate the blind
person to the non-web version of our sales offerings but promise that the
available options and prices are equivalent to the web-based ones.  It is
hard to be sure this will in fact be the case, just as it's hard to know
that a text-only separate web site will be as current and as versatile as
the "normal" version.

All of this said, the same barriers may exist for the normally abled (just
throwing a little fresh PC for ya) person whose limited economic means or
other issues cause him/her not to have Internet access sufficient to use the
web site.  Boy, if I were king, I'd fix all of this <grin>.

Jerry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tina Marie Holmboe" <tina@elfi.org>
To: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Judgment in the SouthWest case.


>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:46:26AM -0400, Phill Jenkins wrote:
>
> > 1. If the business provides a telephone service for the same discounted
> > on-line tickets, does that allow them to not meet the web accessibility
> > standard? Is it about meeting a standard or about accommodation or both?
>
>   Even further: is the same discounted tickets available to those forced
>   not to use the web *without any further proof* ? Remember, the tickets
>   available *online* is available with a discount simply by virtue of
being
>   available online.
>
>   If a user is prevented from using the online service - ie. not unable to
>   due to lack of computer, but prevented for lack of correct code - then
>   the tickets need be available on the phone at the same discount without
>   said user having to prove that this is the case.
>
> --
>  - Tina.dispirited
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 14:22:06 UTC