RE: Computerworld article on hearings

At 11:46 AM 2/11/2000 , Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Kynn Bartlett replied:
>"Yes, it's bad reporting.  I had a talk with the reporter yesterday
>and hopefully managed to clear up some of his misconceptions."
>
>That's great, but are they going to print another article clearing it up? A lot of web designers are going to see that article and be alarmed by it. I'm glad that the reporter now has his head on straight, but that's of little consequence compared to clearing up the misconceptions of the readers. I would hope that they would do a full length article on exactly what the standards do require. Did he give any hint of this? Do you think that they would accept an article written by an outside source (like someone on this list)?

He told me that he was working on a "print" (dead trees) version
of the article, with a deadline of yesterday -- which is why I
spoke to him early yesterday morning -- and the implication was
that the dead tree article would correct these mistakes.

I don't know if they plan to update the electronic version of
the article that we're familiar with by replacing it with the
dead tree version.

Since the phone call with him went well, he may be interested in
a future article on web accessibility standards.  I'll see if I
can drop him a note via email or give him a call later about
that.

I have no idea what kind of articles ComputerWorld accepts --
if their web site works well, it may have details on this?

-- 
Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/

Received on Friday, 11 February 2000 15:08:12 UTC