- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:27:07 -0800
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>, "Katie Haritos-Shea" <kshea@apollo.fedworld.gov>, "1 W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:20 PM 2/13/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>there are poorly written requirements and that makes it hard for
>people...to understand what exactly is required.
These words keep blithely tripping off your fingertips and I don't really
understand why.
"Poorly written" is just too facile/inaccurate/demeaning for the document.
It could be said (probably has) for just about anything ever written. I
just can't accept that you don't "understand" the "requirements".
It can be better written and more understandable and that's why we're
paying you the big bucks but meanwhile if you could curb the denigration
just one notch it would be more comfortable herein.
C U @ CSUN?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 19:29:53 UTC