- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:52:06 -0500
- To: lake@netscape.com (Lakespur Roca), Accessability <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well said. Judy At 01:43 PM 1/4/99 -0800, Lakespur Roca wrote: > >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 >Message-ID: <36911865.BD217A3D@netscape.com> >Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 11:37:09 -0800 >From: Lake Roca <lake@netscape.com> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "Charles F. Munat" <coder@acnet.net> >Subject: Re: The third thing I don't like about the WAI-IG list >References: <002101be36ab$0afccdc0$221172a7@acnet.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >I agree with Charles on all points. Now how's about a solution. I don't >have them all. > >Especially here. I have been a member of many lists most of them >professional. And have not encountered this negative attitude. Evan an >"us against them" attitude almost combative. Yes we have differing >opinions but I have never heard so many bright caring people call so may >other people ignorant in a derogatory way. Could we please be >constructive in our criticism. We need to work with the community and >with in the larger community. We should look at things from both sides >not only out of courtesy but because this will help the group in >devising solutions and answers to the barriers we will encounter when we >try to initiate change. > >Instead of posting "Look what a bad job they did" or "Look at how >uncaring or ignorant they are" posts we should be posting these as >problems we encounter and here is a possible solution and invite others >to give further solutions. > >I have to admit that this is part of my job and I enjoy may job and take >pride in my work but the prospect of reading this list some times makes >me cringe. > >I have actually worked with a woman doing an empirical study of Email >communication and how it's messages are misunderstood. And boy are they! >An idol of mine Norm Abraham of This Old House and New Yankee Workshop >espouses "measure twice, cut once". Here I think it would be "think >twice, send once." I see lots of messages here the respondent to a >message did not understand the premise of a message and so missed the >point. And others where the sender did not clearly express their point. >The ensuing messages went back an forth with out making points that >would have added any thing to the discussion. > >I would like to thank Charles F. Munat for his observations. I hope >something good will come of this. > >Think Twice Send Once >Lake Roca > >"Charles F. Munat" wrote: > >> This is the last one, but the biggest one for me. >> >> #3 >> >> There is a certain sentiment often expressed on this list >> that irks me beyond anything else. I call it the "holier >> than thou" syndrome. >> >> None of us on this list was born knowing how to build web >> sites or how to make them accessible. All of us who do build >> sites have come to this relatively late in life (i.e., not >> in high-school, unless, of course, you still are), often >> *after* learning how to build sites. And all of us are still >> learning. But it all boils down to this: >> >> We are each of us moving along a path toward understanding >> accessibility issues and incorporating them into our lives >> and work. Some of us are farther along the path. Some are >> moving faster than others. But we are all on the same path. >> >> And those who are not on this path are people who may >> potentially be coaxed into following it, too. >> >> So I do not understand the frequent snide comments I read on >> this list. So-and-so's page claims it's accessible but it's >> not! That's not the right way to use this kind of tag! Etc., >> etc. It nauseates me. And putting little emoticon smiley >> faces (not accessible, by the way) or adding a wink or a >> sigh does not make it OK. In fact, it just makes me sicker. >> I am not fooled. >> >> Maybe I'm reading too much into things, and maybe it's just >> human nature, but some of the members of this list seem >> awfully proud of themselves for being on it. Some of the >> self-serving signatures alone are enough to make me gag. >> >> As I understand it, this list can be read, at least in >> archival form, by anyone. Snide comments, in my opinion, are >> best kept to private transmissions (or better yet, ask >> yourself what you have to be so snide about). This forum >> should be a source of inspiration to others to emulate these >> efforts, not an avenue for trashing other people's efforts. >> >> I know many designers, some only via email, others face to >> face. I have NEVER met a single designer who didn't do the >> best job he or she could to design good sites. I have never >> met a designer who did not take pride in his or her sites. >> So if a site needs work (and show me the site that can't be >> improved), GENTLY steering designers to material that will >> aid them to make better sites seems to me much preferable to >> hurting their feelings with sarcasm or pronouncements about >> the value (or rather lack thereof) of their sites, made from >> on high. In fact, I can see no use for snide or disparaging >> comments, whether they are seen by the designer in question >> or not, other than to boost the ego of the person making the >> comment. >> >> Finally, let me add that this type of post usually results >> in a lot of agreement that snide remarks are bad with the >> worst offenders being the quickest and loudest in their >> agreement. So, if you are willing to consider this complaint >> seriously, then I suggest that you first look back through >> your old posts and ask yourself, What were my intentions in >> writing this post? Did I really, honestly, intend to help, >> or was I just venting spleen? Were my comments positive, >> supportive, and encouraging? How would the other party >> interpret this? You may be surprised by what you find. Let >> me say that in my opinion, some of the most frequent posters >> are also the worst offenders. >> >> Not that venting spleen is all that bad, but it should be >> done in general terms, never picking out specific >> individuals or sites. And I would hate for it to become the >> focus of this forum. Let's keep it to a minimum, I say. >> >> So, I begin 1999 by encouraging the members of this list to: >> >> 1. Try to be honest about how much effort is involved in >> learning about and applying the principles discussed here. >> Let's not minimize the value of the work that's been done by >> a lot of people both on and off this list. >> >> 2. Remember that this is not only about convenience, but >> about ethics. There is a moral underpinning to this effort >> that should not be minimized solely to avoid causing >> discomfort to us or our clients. >> >> 3. Read and reread every post before sending it. Ask >> yourself if you've phrased it in a way that takes into >> account everyone's feelings. Insensitivity helps no-one, >> including the sender. And ask if the post is providing a >> solution, or simply nitpicking about a problem. >> >> To end, let me give an example from my own experience, >> though others have suffered the same fate. >> >> A few months ago I posted the addresses of a couple of sites >> I had worked long and hard on to this list asking for >> comment. Now I wanted to know what could be improved, but I >> also hoped for encouragement and some approval from the >> list, since I had obviously tried very hard to make the >> sites accessible. Not many people outside of this list >> appreciate accessibility issues (not many that I know >> anyway), so this was the one place that I thought others >> might understand. >> >> Well, eventually I did get some encouragement, but not much. >> Instead, the first few responses nearly knocked me out of my >> chair. The general tone was very critical, and the general >> message was, This is all wrong, or That's not the way you do >> that, or You don't know how to use this attribute, or Why >> the hell would you do this? Not necessarily in so many >> words, but the tone was quite clear. Maybe I'm overly >> sensitive, but I did not find these replies encouraging at >> all. And not a single reply (until much later) pointed out >> even one positive thing about the sites. >> >> Sure, I learned a couple of things, but what a painful way >> to learn! I guarantee you that I will NEVER post another >> address to this list. I'm no glutton for punishment. And >> I've seen others who got similar treatment. Also, I've >> noticed, not a lot of other people seem to be posting sites >> for review. >> >> Now I spend more time lurking than participating, and every >> time I see someone else get bitten, I wince. What kind of >> way is that to teach and discuss accessibility issues? >> >> I sincerely doubt that I am the only one who has had this >> type of experience or who has felt this way. And while I >> have had similar experiences with other lists (does the >> anonymity of the Internet encourage this viciousness? Are we >> willing to say things in email that we would be ashamed to >> say face to face?), that does not excuse it. >> >> So, for what's it's worth, that's my opinion at the start of >> this new year. >> >> Thanks for listening. >> >> Charles Munat >> Puerto Vallarta > > _________________________________________________________________________ Judy Brewer jbrewer@w3.org +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI Director,Web Accessibility Initiative(WAI), World Wide Web Consortium(W3C) WAI Interest Group home page: http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG Previous WAI IG Updates: http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/Overview.html#Updates Unsubscribe? Send "unsubscribe" subject line: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org Question? http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/Overview.html#Uselist or jbrewer@w3.org
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 16:55:45 UTC