- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:41:12 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <000e01c2320b$8e97fe70$026fa8c0@laptop600>
Hi everyone, I have a feeling that our discussions are getting unfocused enough again that it is not clear what is being proposed or sometimes even argued for. As a result I am going to reissue a request that the chairs put to the list a couple times in the past. Please try to stay away from posts that are philosophical or general in nature. By this I mean anything which is not a concrete suggestion (with suggested wording) for a change to the guidelines, or a concisely worded issue to post to the issues list. You can follow these with a long discussion but we are having lots of discussions that don't seem to be centered on a concrete proposal. As a result a) the discussions don't seem to come to closure with anything we can use very often. b) We have a lot of animated discussions where it looks like people are talking about different things. Sometimes even in successive emails. It makes for angst that I hear about, and sometimes there wouldn't be any disagreement if everyone were talking about the same thing. Also, if we have a consensus decision in place, I don't think the group should entertain proposals that conflict with the decisions unless and until the decision has been reversed (which it always can be). So please don't post suggestions that contradict the principles that we have established. If you think that they principles are wrong, then let's talk about them. If you don't, then don't waste your time and web space with proposals that are in conflict. They won't get far and you and everyone will just become frustrated. So please include in each posting either 1) a short statement with an issue for the issue log or 2) a proposed rewording of something in the guidelines. You can then elaborate in the rest of the email. Issues that are not in this form may not make it onto the issues log or into consideration at the working group meetings. It is just too hard for the chairs to accurately capture the essence of long postings. Now it IS fair game to comment on someone else's proposal. But if you do please a) include a copy of the proposal or issue you are commenting on at the front of your post and b) if at all possible, post an alternate suggestion that takes your concern or comments into account and proposes an alternative Remember, that unless there is an alternative or an issue that the working group can address - you comments and thoughts get put into "deep background" at best--- and "deep sixed" (buried six feet under) at worst. Thanks Gregg PS On a side note, I will be teaching a non-stop 4 day industry course all this week so I will be disappearing until Friday unless I am so zombied that I come to the GL list for relaxation (or escape). (that's scarey) (but I love you all). G -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Human Factors Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848 For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 01:41:09 UTC