RE: accessible banking:

What I am thinking about is how the poverty issue impacts the security issue.
I describe it as a poverty issue since the statement "The law should read 
that anyone should be able to access and fully use any tehnology appropriate 
for a task and which fits their needs." includes people without disabilities
and I believe is an attempt to include less economically fortunate members
of the communities addressed by the W3C WAI Guidelines.  Poverty is not an
accessibility issue unique to these communities as it impacts many outside 
of these communities.

The problem arises when an Internet user fortunate enough to have an early
1990's era system attempts to visit a secure site.  This system is probably
not capable of supporting current encryption standards.  Does the secure site
owner have an obligation to provide this user access at the risk of 
compromising security?  Or does the "...appropriate for a task..." part of
this statement mean this era browser would be exempt from the site owners
obligation?  And if we make this exception, is it not also fair to say
users of "free" browsers capable of supporting current encryption standards
and 'modeling' IE browser behavior have access to any site optimized for 
accessibility with an IE browser?

Given that non-Internet Explorer browsers are now able to 'model' the behavior 
of an Internet Explorer browser, a distinction between the product
Internet Explorer and the behavior of this product needs to be made.  To say
a site is only accessible with an IE browser can mean two different things.  
Either the product Internet Explorer or the behavior of an IE browser is 
needed.  "Free" browsers able to 'model' Internet Explorer behavior provide 
the means for less economically fortunate users to access sites optimized 
for the Internet Explorer browser without incurring any expense or exposure 
to any of the Internet Explorer security issues often cited.


Kurt Mattes


-----Original Message-----
From: david poehlman [mailto:david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:37 AM
To: Mattes, Kurt (Bank One); kpierce2000@earthlink.net;
John.Carpenter@pdms.com; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


I guess so but could you ellaborate on your question.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Kurt_Mattes@bankone.com>
To: <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; 
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: accessible banking:



Does "The law should read that anyone should be able to access
and fully use any tehnology appropriate for a task and which fits their
needs." include any browser capable of connecting to the Internet?

Kurt Mattes


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of david poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:10 AM
To: Kelly Pierce; John Carpenter; wai-ig list
Subject: Re: accessible banking:



Kelly and all, the laws are flawed in this fashion.  they assume lack of
people function when the issue is lack of technology function.  I just read 
a piece on this in fact from the ncd called "righting the ada" which sadly 
carries this mal assumption forward.  90 ercent or more of the issues we 
face are artificial and the sooner they are dealt with, the better.  It is 
as you point out 2005 and was not right in any age to task technology with 
setting the tone for people's lives but rather technology should be tasked 
to serve us.

I did state in my message that this has nothing to do with law, but perhaps 
I was in error.  The law should read that anyone should be able to access 
and fully use any tehnology appropriate for a task and which fits their
needs.  There are many places in the country and in the world where is is a 
mis fit and always will be.

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "John
Carpenter" <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:




From: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; "John Carpenter"
<John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:


> Part of accessibility is choice.  I should be able to access any web site
> with any combination of user agent and technology accessibly and it be
> accessible.  Is this a tall order?  Yes, is it necessary, yes.

**Not under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  As long as the means of
communication made available to you is effective, I.e. allowing you to
complete a certain task, then the bank has fulfilled its access obligations.
Under the ADA, courts view access by functional performance, not by process.
they also don't consider optimal or preferential means but the means that is
sufficient to complete the specified task.  You may choose not to use
Internet Explorer, but in 2005 I have not seen an argument saying that it is
unreasonable or insufficient to require people with disabilities only to use
Internet Explorer to access online banking services.  It seems like you want
access beyond what is required beyond that of the ADA.

Kelly










**********************************************************************
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential 
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the 
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any 
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission 
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in 
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you
**********************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 16:07:50 UTC