- From: Molly E. Holzschlag <molly@molly.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 06:03:55 -0700
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>, "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Quite frankly, Bjoern, it's precisely that kind of elitism that turns off the rest of the world to standards. It's sad, and it's irresponsible. I thought a great idea was emerging there - to get some discussion going on terminology and refinement, which helps everyone. But it should be ideas and facts that are argued and corrected and not people. Reading your post made me feel very bad and while I should perhaps have developed a heavier skin by now, the reality is that I work tirelessly and ceaselessly and often at a financial loss to help others. So it's a huge kick in the gut. Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. Inaccurate or confused? Absolutely. But is the work important and effective to my audiences (which is the practitioner audience, not the theoretical audience, an enormous distinction). So kicks like this make me fill up with with anger and hurt. A human response - because obviously the ideas coming out of the ensuing discussion did not think the content was low-quality, rather - important and relevant to today's work. Criticizing in a tone like that encourages absolutely nothing. I was invited to this list originally because it was felt I had something to offer, but goodness knows I now feel no motivation to continue and be part the exact kind of discussion and documentation that could be beneficial to bridging the perceived gap between the workaday world and the ivory tower. That sucks. You were right to say what you did Karl, but sadly I think it's putting bandaids on gaping, old wounds. I do not understand rigid thinking and unkindness, and I do not want to put myself direclty in its path because I don't need the abuse. How about this, Bjoern. You find something that you can correct or improve upon and you come to me and say "Hey Molly, your article has a few items that concern me, specifically blah, blah, and blah." This is the WEB for heaven's sake. I can take that kind of constructive criticism and easily, quickly and forever right the wrongs and strengthen the work. Hey, what an amazing thought: We all get uplifted as a result. There are three critically important issues emerging from the discussion via my web site that have relevance here. 1. How to serve XHTML versus HTML remains an extremely confusing issue for the majority of people, and with no practical "this is how to" solution that seems to make sense to the majority of practitioners. 2. That people want accessible terminology. The distinction between a Note and a Recommendation (which I do understand by the by) is not something THE MAJORITY OF PRACTITIONERS CARE ABOUT. They want a practical solution, not a mishmash of unclear and conflicting documentation - and they deserve it. Sadly, this is a failing of the W3C's terminology and process and is largely understood by people who work in that environment - but not those of us who work outside of it. 3. That people are extremely interested in finding a way to balance the practice with the science (semantic markup, etc). The science is becoming increasingly inaccessible to the majority of the practitioning audience who do not have the patience to read through specs, much less understand them when they get there. Is this a failing of humanity or the W3C? If the majority of people can't figure out what the heck is being said, and these are the documents that are supposed to guide the way we do things, then we need to figure out better ways to do that. Maybe that means combining very knowledgable people in terms of process, such as Bjoern, and very knowledgable people in terms of face-to-face living, experiencing, writing ability, and broad audience interest, like me, with good diplomats such as Karl and Steph to come up with some real-world documentation that helps address these issues. That would be awesome, and it would be far more positive than waving off things we disagree with or find inaccurate than working collaboratively. But the harsh, unfriendly, and unfeeling tones are disrespectful, dismissive, and do not make me very inclined to put my hand into the fire. Food for thought from the low-quality author, Molly Molly E. Holzschlag Author / Instructor / Web Designer About Me: http://www.molly.com/ About Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 13:06:46 UTC