W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2003

Re: author-defined color aliases

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 03:40:06 +0200
Message-ID: <95734460608.20030617034006@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
CC: Ben Godfrey <afternoon@uk2.net>

On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 2:59:32 AM, Kynn wrote:

KB> On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 05:22 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, 1:19:20 AM, Kynn wrote:
>> KB> On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 03:28 PM, Ben Godfrey wrote:
>>>> Please try to accept that the web we have is a visually rich web for
>>>> more reasons than designers liking fancy schmancy pixels. This list
>>>> should be about helping those who want to create pretty pages and not
>>>> just pure functionality. After all, the web is about people. If it 
>>>> was
>>>> about computers, this list wouldn't exist.

>> KB> You should be careful about equating "people" with "visually
>> KB> rich web"-- as there are plenty of people who use the Web 
>> constantly
>> KB> who have never seen a visual Web page, ever.

>> And you, in turn, should be careful in assuming that the visually
>> disabled are universally against the non-visually-disabled enjoying
>> visually rich websites.

KB> I never made that statement.  It was your assumption.  When did I _ever_
KB> claim that the visually disabled are "universally" (or even partially)
KB> against the other people enjoying Web sites?

At the same time that you were not claiming that visually rich
websites discriminated against the visually challenged ;-)

KB> (Answer:  I never made this claim, so please don't attribute it to me.

I merely asked that you take the same care attributing statements to
people who argue for visually rich websites.

>> I didn't see Ben say 'all people' just 'people'. Creating visually
>> rich websites, especially doing so using stylesheets, should be
>> encouraged not discouraged on this list.

KB> I never discouraged it.  Are you sure you read what I wrote?

Yes, I read it. Someone said that pretty websites were good and people
like them. And you pulled a non-sequiteur out of your hat which was
unwarranted given that they had not advocated any practices that go
against accessibility.

>> KB> People with disabilities are -- understandably, based on millennia
>> KB> of continuing discrimination -- sensitive when you assume that
>> KB> they are not "people."

>> Or when you make assumptions about their motivations and wishes
>> without asking them if you can speak on their behalf. 'Does he take
>> sugar' cuts both ways...

KB> I'm sorry. If you like, I can go poll some people who are blind
KB> and see if they agree that they're people?

Strawman: I agreed that they were people. I did not agree that they
all want other people to see visually poor websites. But feel free to
poll them on that; the results would be interesting I am sure.

KB> Just, Chris, quit making up lies about what I've said, and we'll
KB> be fine,

Temper, temper...

KB> 'kay? If you want to make a point about the importance of visually
KB> rich Web styles, by all means go for it. It's a good enough point
KB> by itself without you having to claim I said otherwise.

Well, someone just did make that exact point, and you then strongly
implied that they were dehumanising disabled people and contributing
to centuries of oppression.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 21:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:07 UTC