E-mail List Archives
Thread: Check Images
Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Fri, Jan 14 2005 7:17PM
Subject: Check Images
No previous message | Next message →
I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible? Or maybe they have
not considered this yet?
Wells Fargo Buys Into Check Image Sharing
Wells Fargo is making an investment in Viewpointe Archive Services LLC
and plans to begin using the company's image archive and exchange
service to send electronic check images to other banks.
http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,98966,00.html?nlid=AM
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 4:40AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Pratik Patel
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 10:21AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello,
As a blind user, I feel otherwise. Just because a system replaces a current
system designed to subjugate an employee to dependency, that does not mean
that infrastructural changes within the system do the same.
Pratik
Pratik Patel
Interim Director
Office of Special Services
Queens College
Director
CUNY Assistive Technology Services
The City University of New York
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 10:32AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Pratik Patel
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 11:45AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Mike,
When I need to fight against supposed disability advocates, it leaves less
energy to propose positive solutions. I shouldn't have had to make the
statement that I did. More later...
Pratik
Pratik Patel
Interim Director
Office of Special Services
Queens College
Director
CUNY Assistive Technology Services
The City University of New York
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 11:55AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Pratik,
I know. I see it frequently. However Lainey Feingold is on our side and
she can do something about it.
Do not give up! Not ever!
And I know you won't!
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: michael.brockington
Date: Tue, Jan 18 2005 3:06AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Terrence Wood
Date: Tue, Jan 18 2005 12:28PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Mike, (missed the start of this thread, but) are we talking about
internet banking here? If the public aren't the intended consumers of
the service then who is? Also, it is well known that the worst usability
is found on intranet or other such 'non-public' systems - not addressing
usability and accessibility issues simply because it is not 'public' is
a cop out IMO. It really doesn't take that much more effort, just a
change in attitude. Rather than seeing it as an added extra, why not
make accessibility and usability part of standard practice? Same logic
as "why use tables for layout when there are better tools for the job?".
Back to banking. I know of three banking applications. What is common
about them all is that they use forms. None of the forms come anywhere
close to addressing usability and accessibility issues in that they lack
correct and useful label/control pairs. They lack titles on form
controls. They use images for submit buttons, preventing resizing button
text. So, immediate simply accessibility fixes for three banks I know of
are:
1. Use text on submit buttons instead of images.
2. Add labels and associate them with form controls.
3. Use titles on form elements.
Another example: one of these banking applications has credit card entry
boxes split into groups of 4 numbers with no warning that tabbing is
required to enter the entire number. In this case a blind user has to
either: submit an incorrect form to (hopefully) generate an error to get
instruction if they don't 'get' that the card number entry is split over
multiple text fields; or, read the entire form first before submitting.
Terrence Wood.
michael.brockington wrote:
>>
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Tue, Jan 18 2005 2:13PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Terrence,
I agree with you.
In my humble opinion this needs to be accessible both internally to the
bank and externally to the customers. Whether this particular application
is intended for internal or external use is not really relevant if the
question is will these checks be accessible to people with disabilities.
Apparently there is some indication it will be used with ATMs. That is
being checked on, and as soon as I have word on it that I can post, I will
do so.
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: KNOCK Alistair
Date: Wed, Jan 19 2005 3:20AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Aren't we making a lot of fuss over nothing?
Read the article first. As I understand it, currently banks receive
checks (or cheques) from customers, enter them on a system, then send it
back to the issuing bank for verification that the check is valid.
Since checks are entirely visual, the existing system requires a sighted
user, as Mike B says. All the proposed system replaces in this exercise
is the need to physically post/courier checks from one bank to another;
instead, they are transferred electronically. Nothing changes with the
verification stage except the verifier is looking at a screen rather
than a piece of paper.
Yes, it's inaccessible, and it's always been inaccessible, but it isn't
customer facing and if a blind person was accepted for the job of
verifier/cashier, the bank would make adjustments to allow that person
to do their job effectively. An easier way of proceeding is to get rid
of checks altogether, which is what the banks are trying to do with
electronic payments anyway.
Incidentally, I was confused about this thread initially since I thought
it was about image validation. Should've stuck to Blighty spelling eh!
Have a nice day,
Alistair
>
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Jan 19 2005 7:25AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
LOL,
Spelling can be a problem. Even when you know how to spell which I do not.
In the US there is a thing called the check 21 law which has gotten rid of
checks effectively. Also check images apparently are going to come up on
Automatic Teller Machines(ATMs). So it is going to be an issue. And
believe me, few employers will make adjustments for an employee if they can
avoid it at least in my experience. They will say, "we have no blind
employees" To me that is like saying " we don't need ramps we have no
customers in wheel chairs."
Stay tuned when and if I find out about the ATMs I will post it here.
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Jan 19 2005 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Michael R. Burks
Date: Wed, Jan 19 2005 9:09AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Yes,
I think a proposal is a good idea. Shoot there are a lot of other words I
can't spell besides cheque.... Centre for one....
LOL
I can t think of anything either, but that is why we have this forum, yes?
So a whole lot of people smarter than I am can help! Especially those who
can spell cheque and other words...
As for the ATM issue, I will see what I can find out. As for the excessive
expense I think it is called "undue burden" Any Lawyers in the house?
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: aknock
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2005 2:55PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Aren't we making a lot of fuss over nothing?
Read the article first. As I understand it, currently banks receive
checks (or cheques) from customers, enter them on a system, then send it
back to the issuing bank for verification that the check is valid.
Since checks are entirely visual, the existing system requires a sighted
user, as Mike B says. All the proposed system replaces in this exercise
is the need to physically post/courier checks from one bank to another;
instead, they are transferred electronically. Nothing changes with the
verification stage except the verifier is looking at a screen rather
than a piece of paper.
Yes, it's inaccessible, and it's always been inaccessible, but it isn't
customer facing and if a blind person was accepted for the job of
verifier/cashier, the bank would make adjustments to allow that person
to do their job effectively. An easier way of proceeding is to get rid
of checks altogether, which is what the banks are trying to do with
electronic payments anyway.
Incidentally, I was confused about this thread initially since I thought
it was about image validation. Should've stuck to Blighty spelling eh!
Have a nice day,
Alistair
>
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2005 2:55PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: mburks952
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2005 2:55PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Yes,
I think a proposal is a good idea. Shoot there are a lot of other words I
can't spell besides cheque.... Centre for one....
LOL
I can t think of anything either, but that is why we have this forum, yes?
So a whole lot of people smarter than I am can help! Especially those who
can spell cheque and other words...
As for the ATM issue, I will see what I can find out. As for the excessive
expense I think it is called "undue burden" Any Lawyers in the house?
Sincerely,
Mike Burks
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2005 3:21PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Jumping in on this thread without reading it all first, so I may be shooting
myself in the foot, in which case just delete.
With my online banking service, I am now able to view canceled cheques that
I have issued. If I was a blind person using a screen reader, that service
would be inaccessible to me. Isn't this an American lawsuit waiting to
happen?
Cheers,
Glenda
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 2:42AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →
Glenda,
I (partially) agree with you. Clearly what you are talking about is related
to the article, though not directly.
However: as stated by myself and others, what would you do about it?
My model of the issue is:
Bank is providing a 'remote view' of a physical object that they hold.
The individual pieces of information on the cheque are mostly already
presented to the user, with the exception of:
Signature,
any over-stamps
The latter could also (theoretically) be OCR'd so that it could be presented
as a description.
However the primary reason that I would want to view a canceled cheque is so
that I could check that the amount had not been tampered with, and that the
signature was mine.
Can anyone explain how you would represent that textually?
To use an analogy, would you expect a computer system to be able to describe
the Mona Lisa, a Picasso self portrait, and a twelve-year-olds self-portrait,
and then even be able to distiguish between them, let alone appreciate the
relative 'quality' of the three?
Mike
>
From: Glenda
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2005 1:46PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | No next message
Michael,
I usually have some suggestions for solving problems, at least a starting
point for finding a solution. In this case I don't. Without knowing all
the applicable laws, the bank may argue the blind customer wrote the cheque
[using whatever means] so why do we now need to make it accessible? On the
other hand, as you mentioned, the signature and any bank stamps are added
later and are inaccessible.
The question may be: how are canceled paper cheques returned to blind
customers? Are they put into any kind of alternate format?? Maybe that
would fullfil the bank's obligations??
Interesting topic.
Cheers,
Glenda