E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

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 →

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
> I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible?

I don't see any reason why they would need to: this isn't meant to be a
public application, and since it is just virtualising a process which already
demands a sighted user I don't see that there is any additional burden.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

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 =

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:42 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
> I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible?

I don't see any reason why they would need to: this isn't meant to be a
public application, and since it is just virtualising a process which
already
demands a sighted user I don't see that there is any additional burden.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Jan 17 2005 10:32AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pratikp1 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 17 January 2005 17:21
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
> 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,
Perhaps you would like to provide some positive advice as to how either the
current system, or its intended (?partial) replacement could be made
accessible to a blind user?
Fighting talk is fine, but does little to promote your cause.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

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 =

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:33 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pratikp1 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 17 January 2005 17:21
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
> 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,
Perhaps you would like to provide some positive advice as to how either the
current system, or its intended (?partial) replacement could be made
accessible to a blind user?
Fighting talk is fine, but does little to promote your cause.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

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

-----Original Message-----
From: pratikp1 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]

To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

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 =

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:33 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pratikp1 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 17 January 2005 17:21
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
> 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,
Perhaps you would like to provide some positive advice as to how either the
current system, or its intended (?partial) replacement could be made
accessible to a blind user?
Fighting talk is fine, but does little to promote your cause.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: michael.brockington
Date: Tue, Jan 18 2005 3:06AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pratikp1 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 17 January 2005 18:45
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
> 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...
>

Well I didn't realise that I was advocating disability - that was certainly
not my intention!

Actually I didn't realise that being an advocate for general accessibility
was a prerequisite for membership of this list. I am a professional web
developer and make no bones about the fact that I have no vested interests. I
am here to discuss, not to fight, but if you cannot bother to be positive
then I see no reason to be sympathetic to your cause. My original point was
valid, even if it failed to support your desires.

Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

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:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
>>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>>Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>>
>>I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible?
>
>
>
> I don't see any reason why they would need to: this isn't meant to be a
> public application, and since it is just virtualising a process which already
> demands a sighted user I don't see that there is any additional burden.
>
> Mike

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

-----Original Message-----
From: tdw [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:27 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

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:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
>>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>>Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>>
>>I wonder how the banks intend to make these accessible?
>
>
>
> I don't see any reason why they would need to: this isn't meant to be a
> public application, and since it is just virtualising a process which
already
> demands a sighted user I don't see that there is any additional burden.
>
> Mike

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
> 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

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

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

-----Original Message-----
From: aknock [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:19 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
> 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

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Jan 19 2005 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 19 January 2005 14:23
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
> 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).

Could you expand a little on that for those of us on the other side of the
pond?

> So it is going to be an issue.

Then we need to come up with some proposals - I can't think of anything
reasonable at the moment, but then I am making quite a habit of proving how
thick I am on public forums. Still, at least I can remain smug that at least
I know how to spell 'cheque'.

> 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."

I think in this case they will be far quicker to claim 'unreasonable'. (UK
law includes the phrase 'reasonable adjustments' as the basis for
discrimination. [Side Note: If, indeed they have no blind employees, then
there is no legal requirement for accessibility to blind users, for internal
applications.] Therefore if the only way to allow a user to carry out a task
involves _excessive_ expense, time etc then the requirement is also void)

For clarification, does a similar clause apply in the US?

>
> Stay tuned when and if I find out about the ATMs I will post it here.
>
Thanks, all information greatfully received.
Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

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

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:57 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 19 January 2005 14:23
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
> 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).

Could you expand a little on that for those of us on the other side of the
pond?

> So it is going to be an issue.

Then we need to come up with some proposals - I can't think of anything
reasonable at the moment, but then I am making quite a habit of proving how
thick I am on public forums. Still, at least I can remain smug that at least
I know how to spell 'cheque'.

> 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."

I think in this case they will be far quicker to claim 'unreasonable'. (UK
law includes the phrase 'reasonable adjustments' as the basis for
discrimination. [Side Note: If, indeed they have no blind employees, then
there is no legal requirement for accessibility to blind users, for internal
applications.] Therefore if the only way to allow a user to carry out a task
involves _excessive_ expense, time etc then the requirement is also void)

For clarification, does a similar clause apply in the US?

>
> Stay tuned when and if I find out about the ATMs I will post it here.
>
Thanks, all information greatfully received.
Mike

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: aknock
Date: Thu, Jan 20 2005 2:55PM
Subject: Re: Check Images
← Previous message | Next message →

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 →

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

-----Original Message-----
From: aknock [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:19 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
> 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

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: glenda [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 20 January 2005 22:27
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aknock [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:19 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List
> > Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

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

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.brockington [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 1:41 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: glenda [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: 20 January 2005 22:27
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: aknock [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:19 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Check Images
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mburks952 [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: 15 January 2005 02:19
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List
> > Subject: [WebAIM] Check Images
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

********************************************************************

This email may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender
immediately and delete it without reading, copying, storing, forwarding or
disclosing its contents to any other person
Thank you

Check us out at http://www.bt.com/consulting

********************************************************************

----
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.1 - Release Date: 1/19/05