- From: Kelly Pierce <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:13:49 -0600
- To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
From: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> To: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>; "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>; "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 5:53 AM Subject: Re: accessible banking: > It might be the likely claim, but the challenge by a disabled person who > is > employed in a shop which does not use ie would be that the services cannot > be performed for his employer because the institution serving up those > services disallows the choice. The ada is all about impact. This is > impact. I believe that this is on a par with giving me braille when I > cannot physically read braille. I know that this does not fly but this is > why the law needs to change. If you want to look at parity, there are > situations where anyone else can use another user agent, but the blind > cannot even though the service is perfectly accessible to those who use a > monitor except for those using ie. If I use ie, I can access the site. I > think we have a red herring here of sorts because the equal access is > being > allowed to be violated in that respect. **You are referring here to an employer when the original example was a bank. Please consult the subject line. these are two different parts of the law and also two different circumstances. the original example was a mass market service in which end users typically access at home for personal reasons not as part of an employment relationship. My comments addressed a public accommodation not an employer relationship. Kelly
Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 13:13:52 UTC