online banking with Bank of America: not quite accessible enough

[David Poehlman]

yep, The way has got it right and following the standards does not prohibit
accessibility by text browsers.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i at azboss.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: online banking with Bank of America: not quite accessible
enough


Hi Buddy,

In the specific case of the Bank of America issue, you are all correct.  It
should be fixed to test the proper condition; Lynx can, indeed, support SSL!

In more general terms, however, all I am saying is that it is critical not
to place any unreasonable demands when it comes to accessibility.  W3C
standards are an excellent starting point as they are widely-recognized,
international standards as far as they go.  Web design software should, by
its very function, generate W3C compliant code while the GUI user designs
the pages for their web site.  That could result in minimal-effort or
zero-effort accessibility.

I understand your concerns with emphasizing form over function.  I am hoping
this will, eventually, settle in to something that actually makes good
common sense.  In the meantime, we can, to some extent, obtain
accessibil8ity to some of the content within Flash presentations and other
such elements.

Darrell Shandrow - Shandrow Communications!
Technology consultant/instructor, network/systems administrator!
A+, CCNA, Network+!
Check out high quality telecommunications services at http://ld.net/?nu7i
All the best to coalition forces carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Buddy Brannan" <davros at ycardz.com>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: online banking with Bank of America: not quite accessible
enough


> 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"
> ones...is 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 ycardz.com   | in the cradle of your grace,
> ICQ: 36621210              | And the shining beaches of your love,
> http://www.ycardz.com      | and the sea of your embrace.--Dave Carter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup