The article that was posted contains many inaccuracies and
mis-representations.  I wrote the letter below to the author of the
article to clarify things.  As of today, there has been no reply.

Kelly


From: "Kelly Pierce" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: talking atm article
Date: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:41 PM


Hello,

I just read your talking ATM article.  I am the co-founder of the Chicago
blind computer User Network and a claimant in two talking ATM cases.  I
also have organized hundreds of blind people to file comments to the
Access board in 2000 describing their experiences and supporting talking
ATM's.

There is another viewpoint in the blind community other than the one you
presented with Curtis chong and the National Federation of the Blind.  I
am pleased to report that there are more than 2,000 talking ATM's in
about 30 states today.  Further, the majority of the 10 largest American
banks, including Wells Fargo, Citibank, Bank One, Bank of America, First
Union, mellon, Fleet Boston, and U.S. Bank, have talking ATM programs
with machines on the street.  These machines are in all regions of the
country and are in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

The article is critical of the .wav file technology.  Yet, it is this
same or similar technology that is used in voice mail systems in use
today.  Why is this so bad for atm's when other uses were not disparaged?
Why must a technology solution for people with disabilities meet
essentially a higher industry standard than a technology solution for the
mainstream?

While text to speech will likely be an optimal approach, current machines
are delivering access now to many blind persons.  Nearly all of these
machines are upgrades to existing machines.  There have been very few
public deployments of text to speech machines.  Access should be
delivered now rather than waiting for the magic point in the future when
the ideal solution will be created.

An inaccuracy in the article is that the current ADA guidelines do not
require talking ATM's.  This is not correct.  The current guidelines
require that ATM's be "independently usable for persons with vision
impairments" and that "all instructions and information for use" be
available in alternative formats.  After one considers all the possible
accessibility solutions, a talking ATM is the only access solution that
can meet this outcome.  The proposed guidelines make this conclusion
explicit.  However, banks and other ATM deployers will likely still need
to comply with current guidelines that require independent usability.
these guidelines have been in effect for the past 10 years.  I am pleased
that banks are beginning to provide talking ATM's.  However, this is in
compliance with current law.

the economics of automatic teller machines was also misstated.  The
benefits of ATM's for banks extend beyond surcharge and interchange fees.
One big benefit is the customer deferral from more expensive service
delivery channels, such as bank tellers.  While banks may claim they make
no or little money from ATM's, they don't make any money either from bank
tellers or bank websites under the same analysis.  As with any service
business, costs are incurred in serving customers who are conducting
business transactions that generate fees for the company.  the generated
fees minus the costs may constitute revenue.  As many services and
transactions are bundled into a bank account, it is unfair to focus on
one, ATM's, as being a drain on the banks.  Further, this analysis
accepts the proposition that accessibility should be based on a cost
effectiveness basis.  that position is not current public policy which
views accessibility, including talking ATM's as a civil right.  Blind
people should be able to have access to banking services to the same
degree that others have.

finally, the ATM designs presented in the article have not been publicly
deployed to any significant degree.  it is unclear if these enhanced
services are wanted or would even be welcomed by the public.  I would be
pleased to discuss these issues with you further by telephone or e-mail.


Kelly Pierce
3257 N. Clifton Ave.
Chicago, IL 60657


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html