- From: Charles F. Munat <coder@acnet.net>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:42:29 -0600
- To: "Accessability" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Lakespur Roca wrote: "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." -------------- An excellent point. But misinterpretation occurs on both ends, so I think we should say that both sender *and* receiver should read, reread, and give the other the benefit of the doubt (or ask for further clarification). I apologize if any of my posts or rebuttals have been interpreted as hostile or offensive. None were intended that way, and, in fact, I've been reading, rereading, and testing replies on my wife just to make sure. That some of them still appear to have given offense simply makes the above point. I also apologize if I have misinterpreted the posts of others. In several cases, I have asked for clarification before replying. But, I must also say this: In my experience, many people have difficulty separating disagreement from disapproval. If I take a position opposing what another believes, that alone may be interpreted by the other as an attack on him or her personally. It would behoove all of us, I think, to refrain from making these issues personal. Charles Munat Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 18:51:11 UTC