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

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 13:36:56 UTC