Re: cannot check boxes.


Sarah k Alawami
 

All of your emails are abstract, and generally unhelpful. If you cannot, gean, provide any helpful info then I say get off of here and learn how to actually listen to what we are saying. You hear but you c cannot listen.

On 4 Jul 2021, at 17:48, Gene wrote:

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. 
 
Gene
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
 
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

 

Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.