You disagreed with me. I responded and that’s how the discussion
began. I do ;pay attention and respond to what people say. You said
this in your initial disagreement:
“I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. While I agree it can be annoying
to find one's favorite browser does not "play well" with a given site, or that
one's favorite screen reader does not, that does not mean a site is
inaccessible.”
As I said, there is a difference between accessible and usable. And
you never defined accessible. You criticized my definition as being
abstract. Without a generally accepted and defined definition of
accessibility, there would be no standards for determining when a site is or
isn’t accessible which would pose all sorts of problems.
All I said was that the problem should be called to the attention of the
bank even if a work around is found. I said nothing about people needing
or not needing to use other browsers or screen-readers. I didn’t say
everyone who encounters any site they need to use a work around to access should
complain to the site. Nor am I saying that a site has to work properly
with every possible combination of programs. But a site like this, a
banking site, should be generally accessible.
On
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 08:03 PM, Gene wrote:
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not
usable by a widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that
site is not accessible.
-
And I have said nothing that
contradicts that in regard to
this specific site from the
outset.
For the love of heaven, Gene, please read, and respond to, what I
have actually written, with the entire context of an ongoing conversation being
used as the framework. I don't make additions to a topic like this that
are each meant to stand, independently, of all others.
My very first
response was to take this up with customer support since the only change had
been to the website. The screen reader and browser were the same as have
been used with their site's prior iteration.
My second was advising the
offering of the specific institution in question, as it's really impossible to
know whether anyone else may have found an accessibility method that you (the
generic you) didn't, somehow.
Talking about issues like this in the
abstract is as close to a complete waste of time as one can get. I could
say, I can't access the subscription management page for my local newspaper, and
it would be entirely useless to discuss unless I could give the exact URL, or
say something like it's a Gannett paper and uses their subscription system (as
there are hundreds of papers owned and run under the Gannett name and
software).
I understand the abstract concepts regarding
accessibility. They're just of little use when discussing a specific
situation and whether anyone may, or may not, have discovered a
workaround. Talking about issues with accessibility without specifics
makes trying to find a solution akin to trying to nail jello to a
tree.
--
Brian
- Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build
19043
I
do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.
The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression, which
are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the
clearest indicator of who you are.
~ Brian Vogel
