Yes, Darrell, you are very correct when you say that we should not place unreasonable demands. I couldn't agree more. So, is it unreasonable to insist that they actually test for encryption in order to insure secure communications rather than inferring that things must be OK if you show up at the door wearing the "right browser?" In essence, it seems to me they're actually practicing dangerous computing, not safe computing, by inferring security from bad data. Darrell Shandrow writes: > From: "Darrell Shandrow" <nu7i at azboss.net> > > 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.>
