W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: tweaked wording

From: Helle BjarnÝ <hbj@visinfo.dk>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 13:19:10 +0200
Message-ID: <48E9FBE6442A6040BE44D6C11258A8B0805E@VFSSBS01.vfs.local>
To: "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Cc: <achuter@technosite.es>, <shadi@w3.org>, <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>

Have these "wording problems" been discussed in any EO WG call? I've tried to follow the links back to both Liam and Shadi's messages, I've also looked at the "Before" web site. I find it very difficult to get an overview of the impact of the changes without being able to compare the site with the old "offending" wording and the new "neutral" wording. Where can I find the old Before site?
I think it will be very difficult not to be able to find one person that will be offended by these rather ridiculous articles on the web site and tend to agree with Liam that we then might as well just put lipsum text in...


Helle BjarnÝ
Visual Impairment Knowledge Centre
Rymarksvej 1, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark
Phone: +45 39 46 01 01
fax: +45 39 61 94 14
e-mail hbj@visinfo.dk
Direct phone: +45 39 46 01 04
Mobile: +45 20 43 43 47

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 9:55 AM
To: shadi@w3.org
Cc: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org; EOWG
Subject: Re: tweaked wording

I agree with Liam's comments [1] referring to your message [2].

The first change doesn't seem to detract from the humour too much. But the  
changes do seem to be going beyond what is reasonable in catering to all  
possible sensitivities. I don't think that the content actually satirises  
anyone. I would vote to leave it as is.

best regards,

Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant,
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios),
Madrid, Spain.

Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 11:17:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:39 UTC