Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
Andreas, you elucidate what I mean pretty well. Christian - I know it's a shame that the only way I could express myself somehow makes standardistas look bad through implication. I don't want to give that idea at all. As for naming and shaming, I object to the notion strongly. The kind of bully I'm referring to doesn't include any particularly accredited or influential tyrants, it's just for the most part faceless extremists who use the banner of good intentions to spout domineering vitriol. To go and 'sort these people out' would be lowering to their level, and besides these people tend to be able to create their own flame wars very easily by themselves! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
On 11/3/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas, you elucidate what I mean pretty well. Christian - I know it's a shame that the only way I could express myself somehow makes standardistas look bad through implication. I don't want to give that idea at all. As for naming and shaming, I object to the notion strongly. The kind of bully I'm referring to doesn't include any particularly accredited or influential tyrants, it's just for the most part faceless extremists who use the banner of good intentions to spout domineering vitriol. To go and 'sort these people out' would be lowering to their level, and besides these people tend to be able to create their own flame wars very easily by themselves! Yeah, I see that now. I guess there's no need to do any sorting, I was just concerned about us turning misunderstandings into serious disagreements. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas [WAS: Articles/reasearch/experience of screen readers]
On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards as a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more and more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemn certain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility. *** DISCLAIMER *** This has nothing to do with the person who said this, nor is it an attack related in any way to the original topic. I am not even discrediting the validity of this statement. I'm really tired of hearing about rotten standardistas without any information as to who these people are. I have never met a standardista I didn't like, and I assume that this opinion can only be formed of a standardista by misunderstandings. From now on, please stop with the vague references to these rotten standardistas... they are becoming like ghosts; everyone talks about them but no one has ever seen them. Moreover, such vague references only undermine the entire community of web-standards-enthusiasts and gives more fodder to our detractors. If you have been the victim of a rotten standardista, please refer to them by name and give us the URL of their blog or portfolio, so we can resolve the possible misunderstandings or out these rotten people altogether. Otherwise I will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist. Thanks in advance. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
Christian Montoya wrote: Otherwise I will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist. There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. does that count? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
Tony Crockford wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: Otherwise I will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist. There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. does that count? I used to think so till I found out why exactly. Different users may have an unusual default font-size set, if you set anything other than the default font-size *on the body* it means they end up not getting the size they wanted/need. You can set your different font-sizes on the elements within at your leisure. I still don't quite get what the difference is but seeing as font-size on the web is completely arbitrary (or should be) it doesn't make a difference. You have to set font-sizes relative to the users default for your elements anyway. The choice is yours but at least base it on what you know for a fact about every potential visitor in your target audience. Rob O *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
On 11/2/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: Otherwise I will just have to keep on assuming that these specters don't exist. There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. does that count? As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That statement doesn't say who these people are or where they said it. I'm not saying this to open up a whole lot of finger pointing and cause a whole lot of argument among list members. I'm not trying to create friction at all. I'm just saying that if you open up a discussion among a web-standards-community and give us a long dissertation on the problems you have had with apparent standardistas, give us something tangible to show that these standardistas exist. Otherwise we can't tell who said what, why what was said, or get into why there may have been a misunderstanding in the first place. If it is something that was said on list, it's as easy as searching the list archives and pointing us to the prior thread, which is helpful for a lot of other reasons. My whole reasoning for this is because most of the time (especially on this list), what is said that is perceived as detrimental is actually true, and we simply have to be able to take the range of opinions and information posed by all the people involved and know how to make the right choices. So for the example you posed, at least you were specific in what was said, and as it turns out from Rob's response: Different users may have an unusual default font-size set, if you set anything other than the default font-size *on the body* it means they end up not getting the size they wanted/need. You can set your different font-sizes on the elements within at your leisure. ... there is some merit to what the font-size fanatics are saying and there's something to be learned from addressing it. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... portfolio.christianmontoya.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
Christian Montoya wrote: On 11/2/06, Tony Crockford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That statement doesn't say who these people are or where they said it. Felix Miata springs to mind... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
-Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Montoya Sent: Friday, 3 November 2006 9:24 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. does that count? As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That statement doesn't say who these people are or where they said it. Christian, I think what you are suggesting could indeed end up in just a lot of finger pointing and turn this dicussion group very ugly. On the one hand I can understand why you want people to be more specific when they complain about standardistas. But really, why pick on what one particular person said? When Tony for example talks about font-size fanatics do we really need to know which person in particular he means? Don't we all know that he means those of us that strongly believe in the importance of setting relative font-sizes? A lot of the discussions in this group are not over the value of Web Standards (we all agree they are helpful), but over how rigidly they should be implemented. Some of us believe that the standard of relative font sizes is not just a guideline, but a rule that should not be broken (if possible). Others see the need for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of this standard. These are the two camps, we all know that they exist, why pinpoint individuals from each one of them? I think the problem is more the negative connotation of a term such as standard fanatics, font-size fanatics or standards zealots. Coming back to the original post: On 11/2/06, Barney Carroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a css-enthusiastic web designer who sees the value of standards as a concept but does not necessarily bow to baseless trends, and more and more I see potentially brilliant ideas get shot down in the community because of 'standards' zealots who are very keen to violently condemn certain methods of working because of very dim notions of accessibility. I think what Barney was trying to express so vividly was that he disagreed with those of us who do not believe there may be cases in which we have to allow for a certain amount of flexibility in the implementation of web standards. Most of us know that there are members of this group who would never touch absolute font sizes, no matter what happens. We also know that there are members who violently oppose opening links in new windows. That's nothing to be ashamed of - just another opinion. Do we need to name names? I don't see the need for it. Maybe we can come up with more descriptive names for the two camps? Instead of standard zealots I recommend to call them Aggressive, conservative standard bullies. On the other side we've got the Can't-commit-to-nothing, undecisive, liberal guideline whimps. Some of us may feel to belong to one of the groups, others see themselves somewhere in between. But we all know what we are talking about, don't we? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Rotten Standardistas
On 2006/11/02 23:46 (GMT) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed: Christian Montoya wrote Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:24:29 -0500: On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:26:25 +, Tony Crockford wrote: There are one or two font-size fanatics that will accuse you of not respecting your users if you feel the need to set a font size other than default. As an example of the kind of empty talk I'm tired of, yes. That statement doesn't say who these people are or where they said it. Felix Miata springs to mind... I submit the following blatant statements of position: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/accessibility.html -- Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven. Matthew 5:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
