RE: FW: Disturbing trend in tables

It is both cruel and inhumane to beat this poor dead horse further.  The
worst part is that to get the good 10% of information off this list, I need
to wade through the other 90%.

Jim Fitzgerald

-----Original Message-----
From: Bailey, Bruce []
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:25 AM
To: 'Anne Pemberton'
Cc:; 'Kynn Bartlett'
Subject: RE: FW: Disturbing trend in tables

Dear Anne,
We should probably go off list with this.  Well, at least we are not having
this discussion on the GL list!  Responses are in-line.

> ----------
> From: 	Anne Pemberton
> Sent: 	Friday, January 19, 2001 7:12 PM
> To: 	Bailey, Bruce; 'Kynn Bartlett'
> Cc:
> Subject: 	RE: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables
> Bruce,
> 	Since others have already taken you to task for losing your cool, I
> won't
> go into that ... I do appreciate the support and kind words from those who
> may better understand the points I am working on. 
I have tried very hard to maintain my cool.  I've apologized publicly to you
twice now, but that's primarily because I don't know how to get through to
you without writing in (what seems to me) very plain and harsh language.
Please let me know (off list) where others have "taken me to task" -- I do
strive for good netiquette -- because I have missed it!

Kynn argues a philosophical case better than you do.  (Better than most on
this list, for that matter -- which makes it quite irritating on the rarer
occasion when he is wrong!)  I am not sure you fully appreciate the point he
is making.  FrontPage is an acceptable tool for some people, but based on
the evidence of your work and your posts on this list, clearly you are not
one of them.  I believe that Kynn does you a real disservice by so
vigorously defending your position, and by inference, your use of FrontPage.

> 	First of all, in the little story of teachers doing 1,2,3 for blind
> relatives, 1,2,3 for deaf relatives, etc., I said that I would be offering
> them the list of all accommodations for all disabilities. I expected you
> to
> read into that that I expected the teachers to decide that doing it all
> would be more efficient than finding out details on the potential
> audience.
> Knowing teachers, they'd rather do the whole thing than do it in pieces,
> but the story I used would let them discover and deduce that instead of me
> standing up banging on rules.
There is no way I could read any of that into what you wrote.  I do know
that the majority of your public pages that you've referred to on this list
do not meet all of the P1 Checkpoints of the WCAG (what Kynn would call
"minimally accessible").  Since you don't provide this bare amount of care
for your own work, it is hardly reasonable for me to assume that the people
you "teach" get a more profound message about disability and the importance
of not erecting needless electronic barriers.

> 	Yes, if you look at my personal pages, they do not display a symbol
> of
> accessibility because they are not "accessible" by the guidelines. Why? in
> part because I have made mistakes, otherwise because I made them before I
> learned how to do the next step on my learning curve ... 
I don't judge you so much on your personal pages as from what I have seen of
your professional work.  Do you have more updated URLs?  I would very much
like for my castigation to have been in error!

> 	Kynn was kind enough to point out that we are unable to judge you by
> your
> work, though your beliefs are expressed in discussion. I do share my work,
> both the good and the mistakes. 
I have posted my home and work web sites to this list before.  In my current
job, I don't post much public stuff.  My previous employer hasn't changed
anything in the more than six months since I left, so you can visit
<> to see the caliber of my work.  My personal
pages were at least as accessible, but I've changed ISP's so now that's gone
now, you'll just have to take my word for it.  Certainly, you (and any U.S.
citizen) can feel free to critique anything you find at and expect to
get a response.  (Any such feedback would be woefully misplaced, however,
were you to send it in my direction!  Your best bet is respond to the email
listed in any given section.)

> 	Yes, I know the last word on the list is always said by those who
> are
> using accessibility to advocate design philosophies unrelated to disabled
> users ... But it is never the end. Yelling down the opposition and getting
> in the last word doesn't prove anything. The  next day and the discussion
> continues. It wasn't the "last word" afterall.  
It is true that discussions always continues.  Threads do die out, however.
If there were not some enlightenment and eventual resolution to most
disagreements, I don't think most of us would be here.  This is a very civil
list.  Yelling down the opposition hardly ever works.  It's been my
experience that people only SHOUT when the person they are debating repeated
misunderstands or ignores them.

I find it very insulting that you would characterize positions as
"advocating design philosophies unrelated to disabled user".  I don't think
it fair to stereotype anyone here that way.  I do think that such a comment
is indicative of your failure to understand how the mechanics of html relate
to accessibility. 

> 	Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't serve the cause better if all the
> philosophical web design checkpoints were all chunked into P3 and
> concentrate P1 on things that actually affect how the disabled guy next
> door with the fancy equipment needs the web now ... 
Are you actually arguing that there are "philosophical web design
checkpoints" in WCAG 1.0?  There is definite philosophy behind the WCAG, but
the checkpoints themselves are terribly deterministic!

> 	With that philosophical thought, I'll close and let hubby take over
> the
> computer for awhile....
> 				Anne

Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 10:37:00 UTC