W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: How to Complain to a Webmaster

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:00:55 -0000
Message-ID: <040501c1623e$60804d00$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"Kynn Bartlett":
> At 10:15 AM 10/31/2001 , Jim Ley wrote:
> >Certainly it's not malice, but I'm intrigued as to why we should do so
> >much to pander to a professional's inability to do their job?  I
wouldn't
> >expect a Doctor's lack of professional ability to be quietly pointed
out
> >in an email, and then if it doesn't get an appropriate response
ignored
> >for a month and it simply resent?  Why should we do that with web
> >authors?
>
> A doctor works for _you_.

Please remember this is a global forum, no doctors ever work for me, in
any case the analogy I was thinking of, as we are the web developers
peers, is the complaints of other web developers (cf. "Bristol heart
enquiry" in google with respect to doctors.)

> Having a web site doesn't mean that you're allowing everyone
> out there to give you work orders.

Naturally not, where did I suggest otherwise, I said complaints need to
be directed to those who make the decisions, not the developer.

> Here's an example.  I went to http://www.jibbering.com/ -- this is
> a HOPELESSLY INACCESSIBLE text web site which consists of web pages
> without illustration, meaning it represents a major barrier to
> people who can't read so well.

How do you know? there is no "site" at that url, there are a series of
disjoint pages created for specific reasons to support usenet/mailing
lists, and the url above isn't even for that, it's simply to be there,
and to do what it says.

> I'd really like to see the maintainer update the FAQ at
> http://jibbering.com/faq/ to illustrate each point with images that
> could be understood by the cognitively disabled.

The url above is a simple copy of the FAQ that is posted to a newsgroup,
which is of course a plain-text medium, it cannot contain any images, I'm
sorry. (it is actually simplisticly processed into HTML to make the urls
hyperlinks...)

> There, I'd made one complaint -- and I've even made it in public,
> too!  Now I should simply sit back and expect Jim to recode his site,
> correct?  That's how we're expecting things to work, right?

No, where did I, or anyone else say that, you made a proposition of how
to complain, I _strongly_ disagree with a number of your conclusions in
that proposition, the main one being that you should only, or primarily
adress the developer, I believe you have to address the person with the
budget to get it changed.  Authors should be professional enough to do
their job.

> Of course it's important to educate everyone.  No one has denied
> this, and if you're thinking I've said that, please read a little
> more carefully.

Your post on how to make a complaint, clearly said you should complain
solely to the author, nowhere did you mention educating the person who
commissioned the site, of course I know you beleive educating everyone is
important, but you said then (and repeated it in the post I'm replying
to.) that you should start by complaining to the site developer - how
does that educate the commisioner?

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 14:03:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:58 GMT