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

RE: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)

From: Stuart Smith <Stuart.M.Smith@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:48:14 +0100
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050607154814890.00000000376@marvin>

 
Hi John

I need to clarify something here please?

When you say 
"Many on this list also believe that a more-or-less strict adherence to published standards"

Just after talking about one of the WCAG Priority's you are not including them as a standard? As they are published as Guidelines surely?

I maybe a newbie to the group but I am very concerned about the growing reinterpretation of the Guidelines as Standards. There are lots of standards out there, which are very important and useful and the Accessibility Guidelines are important too. But they are just guidelines surely? If they are now being mooted as standard then they need a greater robustness and adaptability.
Cheers

Stu


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot - WATS.ca
Sent: 07 June 2005 15:21
To: 'Orion Adrian'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)


Orion Adrian wrote:
> 
> I don't mind being corrected. What I do mind is saying, even taking 
> into perspective the commenters, that calling X, Y it someone 
> eliminates all my experience. I wasn't by the way just having a bad 
> day, but people do make typos, mistakes and so on. The rapidity that 
> people came down on me to challege my knowledge was disturbing.

Orion,

On June 6th you made a bold assertation to this list, and I quote: "I'm a certified Master CSS2 programmer"
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2005AprJun/0398.html).

You then proceeded to make comments about existing CSS issues using incorrect terms and descriptions, and argued with list members on whether CSS or HTML is programming or not. (It's not!)  Some long time list members took you to task (rightly so) about this apparent disconnect ("Masters"
would never use wrong terminology), as well as questioned "exactly where"
did you get this certification.

This list is about accessibility, and the need for clear communication is one of those little things that many of us 'fixtures' worry about.  Without clear communication, your ideas become less accessible, as end readers need to try and discern what it is you *really* mean.  Using incorrect terminology can cause a cognitive issue, as people do not understand what you are talking about.  You witnessed this first hand.

	"WCAG Priority 1:14.1 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content."  (I might add to also use the appropriate and accurate language)

Many on this list also believe that a more-or-less strict adherence to published standards (whether they are right or wrong) is the best way to ensure that the content is accessible to as many as possible.  You argued for proprietary "extensions" authored by your self.  This too will be roundly beaten upon on this list.

You appear to have a technically rich understanding of the technologies (I don't know about "Master"), and you seem willing to contribute and comment on issues germane to this list - so for that, Welcome and thanks.  But please, choose your words carefully and if you claim to be an 'expert' be prepared to back it up.

Peace.

JF
--
John Foliot  foliot@wats.ca
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca   
Phone: 1-613-482-7053
Received on Tuesday, 7 June 2005 14:48:17 GMT

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