online banking with Bank of America: not quite accessible enough

Buddy Brannan davros at
Sat Jan 31 11:35:25 EST 2004

Hi Darrell,

I couldn't disagree with you more. 

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:32:36AM -0700, Darrell Shandrow wrote:
> Hi David,
> Unfortunately, pure-text based browsers like Links and Lynx are simply
> obsolete.
On what basis do you say this? Just because they're not in the
mainstream, or what? There are certainly legitimate reasons besides
blindness that one might use a text-only browser. But that's not even
the point, really.

  There's no reasonable expectation that any company should be
> forced, in any way, to support such technology. 

I don't think this is necessarily an issue of forcing anyone to
support obselete technology. The test that the page conducts is
flawed. That certainly *is* cause for concern. While a company perhaps
shouldn't be forced to support "such technology" (and we can disagree
on the merits of that statement), they *should* at least be forced to
make accurate statements and conduct accurate tests. The browser is
neither Netscape nor MSIE; therefore it doesn't support SSL? One does
not follow from the other. What if the browser is Mozilla? What if the
browser is Opera? If what you really mean is "This browser isn't
netscape or Internet Explorer", say so. If you mean "This browser does
not support Javascript", say that. But don't say "This browser
supports SSL" when that statement has not been proved correctly. That
is a legitimate gripe.
 We must strive to separate
> any and all concepts of web accessibility from these obsolete technologies,
> as any such link hurts our cause. 

I don't think insisting on adherance to W3C standards, or at least,
adherance to good, efficient, and universal Web design will hurt our
cause. If we insist on these things, accessibility should follow, if
we insist on accessibility as a part of the standard. IMO we've put up
with sloppy Web design for too long. Web designers have been allowed
to design with form over function and visual appeal over utility for
far too long. The Web is too full of gratuitous flash and gee whiz
effects at the expense of usability, and I don't think that insisting
on utility is a bad thing. Fact is, I would love for you to tell me
why necessarily "modern" browsers are better than "antiquated" it because they accept sloppily designed pages? If so,
that's not good enough. Well, we have to deal with sloppily designed
pages, you could say, so we need "modern" browsers to deal with
them. I'd rather have pages that aren't sloppy and don't emphasize
form over function. In fact, I think we should all insist on it. 

Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV/3    | But I will lay my burden 
Email: davros at   | in the cradle of your grace,
ICQ: 36621210              | And the shining beaches of your love,      | and the sea of your embrace.--Dave Carter

More information about the Speakup mailing list