W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Understanding vs. Accessibility

From: Richard Premack <richardp@akamail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:36:07 -0400
Message-Id: <199906131642.MAA12510@screamer.cftnet.com>
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

I apologize for subjecting the rest of the group to this, but your
"two-word" reply comment to Anne was the last straw.  You don't have to say
the words because we all know what that means. It's the same as saying it. 
This is terrible behavior and has no place on any IG list.  How dare you
play the helpless victim?

I didn't notice Ms. Pemberton attacking you personally, rather your ideas,
which is part of what argument: the exchange and examination of contrary
ideas/assertions is all about.

Since you raised the issue of nastiness, let me offer a few
of your statements from your postings, uncensored, un-editorialized albeit
necessarily out of context for the sake of brevity.  (I believe reproduced
within context they would have the same effect)

Your call for civility seems a bit hypocritical and self-serving, and
reminds one of the kid who wacks another kid with a stick, then hides
behind momma.

You certainly dish it out but ...

So why don't people do it?  Ignorance, mostly.
Unfortunately too many web designers are either ignorant
or lazy, and won't do it right by themselves -- and so some people are
Gosh, some people simply delight in being dicks.
>[Military service is a special case]  What I'm getting at is
>that even though this site may not be not fully accessible due the
>requirement of SSL transactions for purchases this is both necessary and

To who?  (Besides you, obviously.)
In short, people suck, and most don't care about being "inclusive",
so if we put all our eggs in a basket with that label, we'll be
The best answer is "because you're not a fool and a moron".
 It's the natural
state of people to be cruel and heartless to the disabled,
because people (in general) suck.
This isn't the case, because people aren't "ethical" and "moral."
Sounds like a really dopey idea.
>The guidelines embedded inline in our home page ?

Now you're being silly.
>The short-term answer is we
>aren't doing anything now. The long-term answer is it's definitely
>something we'd want to consider." 

Yeah, and we're also considering giving $100 to the orphanage
down the street, too.  Jeez.
Another example of sloppy reporting on this issue, especially
when they quote ignorant web developers -- who obviously haven't
been to http://aware.hwg.org/ -- who say that making a site
accessible will "double" the time necessary to make a web

Utter bull$#!+.
Why, o why, when they interview "web designers", do they always
choose the ones who know NOTHING about what they're talking about?
I mean, would it REALLY be that hard for them to ask someone who
actually understands the issues?
Most professional writers don't have the time to learn English!
Grammar and spelling are hard!  The average editor doesn't know
anything about correct use of punctuation!

Maybe I'm an amazingly high quality web designer or something,
but I am really sick of hearing from these supposed web"masters"
that it's not THEIR fault they're grossly incompetent at producing
for the web. 
I got the same request through different channels -- as someone
who believes that most "anti-web-accessibility" sentiment is
due to either ignorance or someone simply being a jerk, it was
hard for me to recommend someone who would argue persuasively
that web accessibility is a bad thing.  (Asking me this is sorta
like asking your local catholic priest for someone who'll argue
convincingly that you shouldn't go to church.)
>Our site www.peepo.com is a drive thru.

I just went there.  I don't understand it.  Maybe I'm too
literate or maybe I lack compassion, or maybe it just doesn't
make any sense to me.
.......  I cannot possibly fathom the idea of instructing web designers to
down" every single page they create, irregardless of the intended
No, not yet, because the browser makers are pretty lame.
I apologize for having to hold up the mirror.  I know none of us is
perfect, myself included, but can't stand by idle either while someone is
treated this way.  No one should be subjected to vulgarities like your "two
words" comment, whether implied or fully expressed.

Thank you,

Just another ("pretty lame"??) browser maker,

Richard Premack
From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Understanding vs. Accessibility
Date: Sunday, June 13, 1999 11:12 AM

Anne wrote:
> [more personal insults accusing me of discrination etc]

You just don't get it, do you?  Again, I hope that someone will
someday come along who can your point without the insults.  I
have found that in _my_ attempts to educate people on the
issues I understand, insulting them does no good at all.

I have a two-word reply to Anne, but I will spare the members
of this list the vulgarity, and try to keep on topic.  Unless
anyone else wants to play "call Kynn a bigot"?

--Kynn (this from someone who doesn't use ALT correctly??)
Received on Sunday, 13 June 1999 12:35:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:04 UTC