- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:22:57 -0000
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>
> Martin Poulter > I don't get the point in your other email that the labelling is > "elitist". That "elitist" referred to the name, not the content. To clarify: I'd shy away from giving it a grandiose sounding title (a la "The 10 super special rules of the Art & Design of the Web") as it sets up expectations (where really you're "just" listing common sense advice) And may make it look, IMHO of course, like it's just a bunch of elitist web people patting each other on the back for being part of this special club. I'm exagerating, of course...don't take me too seriously. Looking at the points again, I'd throw in another suggestion for naming: "10 common sense guidelines for a more usable web site". Then, on individual sites, web authors could have a link along the lines of: We fully support the "common sense guidelines" (i.e. the commitment, the pledge, is not implicit in the name, but in the way the individual web sites link back to it). > Good point. "Never" is too strong. Can you suggest an > alternative form > of words that isn't off-puttingly legalistic? Even in this case I'd say "we'll strive"...although it sounds non committal, it's probably more reflective of what is within a web manager/editor's power. > No particular attachment to 10. I think lists of ten have a cultural > grabbiness that 9 or 11 wouldn't have. 10 is just how many we came up > with in the initial meeting. Sorry, was being purposely controversial. I think the point was: if you only have 9 good ones, don't feel like you have to make it a round 10. Or, if you think you have 11 good ones, go for that.
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2005 11:23:16 UTC