W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Disability Type Analysis of WCAG 1.0

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:30:44 -0700
To: "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Paul Bohman wrote:
> [Your comments] can also be condescending at
> times, which can be a bit tiring to read.

Apologies to anyone who finds me condescending. I'm not, but that doesn't
always come across well (either on line or in person). I can't possibly
condescend because I see everyone on this list as at least an equal. Most of
the time, I feel rather overmatched. But my argumentative style, honed as it
was by adolescent struggles with an aggressive and articulate father, does
turn some people off. I'll be happy if I just get something positive done.

> Your warnings are good, if melodramatic.

One man's melodrama is another man's understatement.

> [C Munat] The point of any experiment is to test a hypothesis. . .
> [Paul] Kynn's analysis was not an experiment. It was a
> statistical analysis.
> Nothing more or less.

I would say it was considerably less. But then I already did.

> [C Munat] The real question, as I mentioned previously, is ARE THERE SOME
> [Paul] Agreed. No need to shout.

Not my intention to shout, but to allow a person scanning the text to find
the key points faster. I don't think * cuts it, but if all caps is being
misinterpreted, then I'll need to find a better method. Maybe key concepts
should be on separate lines. Maybe a triple *** would be better, but that
might also provide more emphasis than I intended. I'll play around with it.

Chas. Munat
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 20:28:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC