- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:00:55 -0000
- To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
"Kynn Bartlett": > At 10:15 AM 10/31/2001 , Jim Ley wrote: > >Certainly it's not malice, but I'm intrigued as to why we should do so > >much to pander to a professional's inability to do their job? I wouldn't > >expect a Doctor's lack of professional ability to be quietly pointed out > >in an email, and then if it doesn't get an appropriate response ignored > >for a month and it simply resent? Why should we do that with web > >authors? > > A doctor works for _you_. Please remember this is a global forum, no doctors ever work for me, in any case the analogy I was thinking of, as we are the web developers peers, is the complaints of other web developers (cf. "Bristol heart enquiry" in google with respect to doctors.) > Having a web site doesn't mean that you're allowing everyone > out there to give you work orders. Naturally not, where did I suggest otherwise, I said complaints need to be directed to those who make the decisions, not the developer. > Here's an example. I went to http://www.jibbering.com/ -- this is > a HOPELESSLY INACCESSIBLE text web site which consists of web pages > without illustration, meaning it represents a major barrier to > people who can't read so well. How do you know? there is no "site" at that url, there are a series of disjoint pages created for specific reasons to support usenet/mailing lists, and the url above isn't even for that, it's simply to be there, and to do what it says. > I'd really like to see the maintainer update the FAQ at > http://jibbering.com/faq/ to illustrate each point with images that > could be understood by the cognitively disabled. The url above is a simple copy of the FAQ that is posted to a newsgroup, which is of course a plain-text medium, it cannot contain any images, I'm sorry. (it is actually simplisticly processed into HTML to make the urls hyperlinks...) > There, I'd made one complaint -- and I've even made it in public, > too! Now I should simply sit back and expect Jim to recode his site, > correct? That's how we're expecting things to work, right? No, where did I, or anyone else say that, you made a proposition of how to complain, I _strongly_ disagree with a number of your conclusions in that proposition, the main one being that you should only, or primarily adress the developer, I believe you have to address the person with the budget to get it changed. Authors should be professional enough to do their job. > Of course it's important to educate everyone. No one has denied > this, and if you're thinking I've said that, please read a little > more carefully. Your post on how to make a complaint, clearly said you should complain solely to the author, nowhere did you mention educating the person who commissioned the site, of course I know you beleive educating everyone is important, but you said then (and repeated it in the post I'm replying to.) that you should start by complaining to the site developer - how does that educate the commisioner? Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 14:03:07 UTC