- From: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:50:08 -0600
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "'david poehlman'" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "'John Carpenter'" <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
From: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca> To: "'Kelly Pierce'" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; "'david poehlman'" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "'John Carpenter'" <John.Carpenter@pdms.com>; "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:48 AM Subject: RE: accessible banking: Exactly. The biggest issue is those institutions which think that as long as they meet the "technical" requirements, their obligations end there. They see it as an "obligation", as opposed to the "right thing to do". The purpose of this type of legislation is to try and mold society to one which is more inclusive, less discriminatory - fairer. To me, the bottom line is this: nobody has conclusively proven why the institution *cannot* make their site accessible to other browsers. I know my bank's on-line banking site "works" in other browsers, so there is existing proof that it *can* be done... I suspect that if ever it went before the courts, a strong case could be made against the bank in question. JF **John, I believe we are talking about American courts interpreting the ADA not Canadian ones. 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. for example, written material can be presented to a blind person in Braille, in an audio recording, such as on a cassette or CD, large print, or in a digital file such as in ASCII or in a Word Processing format. Choice of format is entirely at the discretion of the provider of the information not the blind person. the person's "choice" is only relevant when the provided communication is not effective, such as providing a Braille document to a person who doesn't read Braille and wants information in an audio recording. Kelly
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 02:50:13 UTC