- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:54:40 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I received the following from Debi, and I think it provides _very_ important context, and also illustrates exactly what you _should not do_ if you want to be part of the solution and not just complain about the problem. In my opinion -- as long as we are using this list to be judgmental -- I'm amazed that Debi received as civil of a reply as she did. In context, I see the following message as being _very_ off-turning and his reply suddenly seems a model of tact and understanding. He responded well to my approach of treating him like a decent and well-meaning human being who could be enlisted as an ally -- and he spouted off doubletalk (and likely wrote off completely) someone who considered him the enemy. Which tactic do I think will get us further? Well, you be the judge. I continue to be very much against a divisive policy of simply blasting people with inaccessible sites. And I believe it was very poor form for Debi to send a letter like this, and then post his reply without the vitally important context of _what_ exactly he was replying to. --Kynn Bartlett >X-Sender: oradnio@albany.net@mail.albany.net >Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:29:56 -0500 >To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com> >From: Debi Orton <oradnio@albany.net> >Subject: Re: What the Salt Lake City guy really said > >At 07:36 AM 10/30/2001 -0800, you wrote: >> >>In the end I think it's important to recognize >>>>what you're saying has merit. >> >>I notice how nobody actually seemed to respond to or read this. It >>looks to me as if he's saying there's merit in what's being said >>about web accessibility (note that we don't KNOW what was actually >>said, nor the tone in which it was said, since that part of the >>message wasn't quoted by Debi). > >Here is the original message. You'll recall I mentioned that it was >input to a form, so I'd had to cut and paste it into a text file to >preserve it: > >Do you have any plans to make this site accessible in the near future? > I don't use Javascripts and dislike frames (as do most users), so I had to > go to another computer just to write you this message. > > If you're trying to portray the Olympics as an elitist sporting event > that caters only to the wealthy and the digital "haves," then your web > site is doing the trick. > > If you'd like to include those of us who don't have access to the latest > technology and live in rural areas where attaining even a 28.8 > connection is a noteworthy achievement, then you're failing badly. > > What about those nations that don't have access to anything more than a > 286 or 386? What about those individuals who are blind or hard of > hearing? Have you even considered them in this site? I don't believe > you have. > > I had planned to include the Olympic Committee in my annual charitable > giving this year. You have just taken them off my list. > > > >---------------------------------------------- >Debi Orton/oradnio@albany.net >"The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it >ahead of time...and you can't see it if you refuse to face the >possibility." -- William S. Burroughs -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ___________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TOADS RULE IN EXILE. ___________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 00:03:18 UTC