W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Acceptable media.

From: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:20:10 -0500
Message-ID: <509BCDAA.60002@garbee.me>
To: public-webplatform@w3.org
One of the target audiences for using WPD is educational institutions.  
They require a certain amount of professionalism in the content that 
they either tell students to use or recommend they use.  Most of us 
don't care since we know it is just having fun.  The problem is if 
teachers are to use this in a classroom as a resource for students then 
media like that could be a distraction. Creating a distraction could 
deter them from using or recommending the site.

We should try to aid usage of the site in as many environments as 
possible.  If this means something as simple as asking for professional 
images be used, we should do it.

-Garbee

On 10/31/2012 7:29 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
> The image is in use as a generic example of an image that text floats 
> around. There will likely be a lot of cases where a demo or example 
> needs to show something off about working with an image. In those 
> cases I don't think "relevancy" is necessary.
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com 
> <mailto:scottrowe@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     Perhaps we owe it to our audience to keep images only if they are
>     RELEVANT as well as inoffensive, not obscene, etc. What's relevant
>     about a cat with a strip of bacon taped to it's ribs? Funny,
>     maybe, but...
>     +Scott
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Garbee
>     <jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>> wrote:
>
>         So, it sound so far like we should go with, "As long as it
>         isn't obscene we can have a laugh."  I'm down with that as
>         long as others are.  I just saw that and professionalism
>         jumped into my head straight away compared to having fun.
>
>         So at this point the main question would be, Does anyone
>         simply outright object to non-professional style images?
>
>         -Garbee
>
>
>         On 10/31/2012 6:37 PM, Alex Komoroske wrote:
>>
>>
>>         On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Garbee
>>         <jonathan@garbee.me <mailto:jonathan@garbee.me>> wrote:
>>
>>             I somehow ended up checking recent uploads and found this
>>             little treat [1].  While funny, I am wondering if we
>>             should have some terms for acceptable media that is
>>             uploaded to the site?  I think we should ask images be
>>             more professional than this.
>>
>>
>>         Whoa, at first glance I thought that was a cat with a recent
>>         surgical wound (gross!). Other than that concern about this
>>         particular image, however, pictures that are a bit irreverent
>>         don't personally bother me.
>>
>>         On the one hand, we want to create a credible site
>>         that professionals can trust. On the other, WPD is part of
>>         the internet ecosystem--an ecosystem that has a certain kind
>>         of irreverent humor. I'm /personally /fine with images that
>>         are irreverent as long as they aren't over the top or
>>         potentially offensive.
>>
>>
>>             Thoughts?
>>
>>             Thanks,
>>             -Garbee
>>
>>             [1] http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/File:box_baco.jpg
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 15:20:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:35 UTC