Re: accessible banking:

I'll make this clear.  I work for a firm which tasks e to do banking for 
them...

Johnnie Apple Seed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Pierce" <kpierce2000@earthlink.net>
To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "John 
Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>; "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: accessible banking:




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 18:47:43 UTC