W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105060616454a558101@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

I consider it petty criticism when it has nothing to do with the
argument I was trying to make but is rather a backdrop.

What would have been nice is for someone to have been more forward and
simply say, we've had problems with people claiming expertise in the
past and not having it.

One of my hobbies is looking at usability of programming languages
(the actual languages themselves). I find that the current view of
them is very limited. What gets considered a programming language and
what doesn't very much seems to revolve not around the actual term,
but rather impressions left behind by the early prominent programming
languages.

This started when I first heard someone say that HTML was a
programming language. At first I calmly explained that it wasn't and
the person worked through the argument with me. At first I held my
ground, but later I actually thought about it and I found it as
reasonable a viewpoint as mine.

As a matter of conformity, no it's not traditionally called a
programming language nor thought of as one. I, however, hold a broader
view.

However this still doesn't get around why I called the comment about
my use of it nitpicking. I use nitpicking as would most people I know
when someone makes an argument tangential and attacks a point by
attacking either a) someone's credentials or b) attacking things said
that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I do have a firm grasp of programming, accessibility, platform design
and many other things. It doesn't really matter where I got them. So
please let it go and actually try to respond to the criticism I made
in the first place.

As to my text wrapping request, it was completely ignored twice.

Orion Adrian

On 6/6/05, Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net> wrote:
> On  6 Jun, Orion Adrian wrote:
> 
> > I would ask that you don't nitpick. Programming is a reasonable word
> > here since I'm providing instructions that are compiled or
> > interpretted for a platform. The usage of elements here is the common
> > English usage.
> 
>   You might be thinking of "nit-pick", which has nothing to do with what
>   I did:
> 
>     "Nit-picking: n. informal. Petty criticism."
> 
> 
>   We - aka the accessibility community - have a problem which, most of
>   the time, go uncommented 'pon.
> 
>   When I started working in the field, some twelve years ago, those who
>   claimed expertise existed mostly in the
>   comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Usenet group. Sprout
>   semi-coherent knowledge there, and you'd get your head chopped off -
>   peer review at its finest, and its ugliest.
> 
>   Today, a claim to expertise is met by "Ooh!" and "Aah!" - and if there
>   is a published book involved then status as a deity is quick to
>   follow. So, people are talking about certification. Separate the wheat
>   from the chaff, so to speak.
> 
>   You, Sir, claims certification as a CSS2 "Master", and yet you are
>   propagating the use of incorrect nomenclature for your very field.
> 
>     - CSS is not programming by any conceivable stretch of the
>       imagination. The instructions are not "compiled" nor "interpreted"
>       in the sense these terms are used in *programming*.
> 
>     - The word "element", as used in common English, has absolutely
>       nothing what so ever to do with the way it is used in CSS and
>       HTML. CSS is quite explicit in its use: "The primary syntactic
>       constructs of the document language." - you may wish to change the
>       names of elements in (X)HTML, but when you talk about "elements in
>       CSS" and how they are "poorly named", you are doing everyone a
>       disservice. Calling a spade a hammer doesn't do anyone any good.
> 
> 
>   Agreeing upon which words describe which abstract ideas is the very
>   foundation for human communication - and, in a way, the very first
>   step in accessibility.
> 
>   To quote the Perl manual: "But then you know when you use
>   RedefineTheWorld() that you're redefining the world and willing to take
>   the consequences."
> 
>   You redefined parts of very important language; Mr. Adrian. The
>   consequences just came home to roost.
> 
>   This is not petty criticism. THIS is pointing out that you are calling
>   "a spade" "an elephant", and would you *please* stop confusing people
>   by doing so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > In terms of text wrapping I'm talking about what Microsoft Word allows
> > you to do and what float allows you to do in limited cases. I'd like
> > the ability to wrap text on both sides of an object placed anywhere.
> 
>   I am looking forward to hearing what the CSS WG said when you made
>   this suggestion to them.
> 
> --
>  -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
>    tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
>    [+46] 0708 557 905
>
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 23:46:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT