Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Naah. Foster, if he needs to, would use Opera's zoom feature . . . :-) Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk - Original Message - From: Ricci Angela [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:03 AM Subject: RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc) By the photo, Foster seems to be around 70 years old... and I bet he has problems reading he's own site's tiny little letters. Cheers, Angela On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Hi all This is starting to push off topic. Please keep it on the topic of accessibility (maybe start a new thread that is more descriptive) or take it elsewhere... and remember our list guidelines about abuse. Thanks James -- admin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
This is tending to drift off-topic, but it is a valid part of standards because we're discussing accessibility issues in relation to design and the role of 'image' in design. (So now I feel better :-). The attitude that says 'visually impaired people don't matter because it isn't for them' may sound insular, but it isn't. It's merely a matter of fact. The evangelists of the 'everything in the world must be accessible to all' camp are striving for the impossible. The logical extension of this extreme attitude is that all art galleries should close down because the totally blind can't see anything in there, and all music should be unavailable because the totally deaf can't hear it, and . . . OK, you get the point. However, I do believe that we must all strive to produce something which can be appreciated by as many folk as possible, including those with accessibility difficulties. So, to take my own case (so I'm not slagging anyone else off) my main business site is primarily flash, and it is totally 'inaccessible in the sense we mean here. [ It's the link in the signature below] So, I've provided an html version too (same 'factual content', different way of going about it - as indeed applies to the FosterPartners site also). My site may not be perfect, but Hey - that's why I'm here : to learn how to make it as near perfect as I'm capable of doing, with help from you guys. So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with disabilities - the html option is. Surely? Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with disabilities - the html option is. Surely? I'd say Flash is mostly a problem because it frequently breaks all usability and accessibility guidelines AND it's the only thing on the site. Which is fine if your site has absolutely no serious purpose, but not good if you're a business. Not that Flash is incapable of being created in an accessible manner or anything; just that it is a format which lends itself more to art than communication. As I've taken to saying... there's a reason it's called Flash and not Substance ;) Most of it boils down to how you use it... just like PDF, it's ok if used carefully; but terrible when used for vil ;) cheers, h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
This reply shifts focus a bit, but with the word aesthetics being considered relevant to the discussion, if not the only norm for design of websites, I'd like to speak up for the semiotic dimension. Images also speak like words, but more shimmeringly. I don't refer to an animation or Flash effect on the computer screen, but to be precise the use of the symbol of Cross with lightning effects and blue luminscent sky in relation to a text by the orginal author about a Mystical something that was no good. Why what's his name's page had to exploit that particular symbol is not only poor taste but carries a subliminal message that completely overwhelmed his point, his surface-text, and any trust this Christian can put in his remarks. He played with creating blindness to his own textual message, and left some readers with a blindspot for anything he has to say. At the least, he proved himself to be semiotically ignorant, and postmodernist to the extreme in toying with symbols that are sacred to a huge part of the online some of whom may actually be on this WebStandards list. I lost my way a bit in finding how to enter the discussion, and want to make clear that I appreciate heretic's contributions to the whole thread. I'm sighted so I'm just getting used to the problems and dilemmas our blind members may have, and am just learning about them. And above I used blindness as a metaphor for my own sighted semiotics problem with the original critique, I hope I did so without furthering offense. On 4/21/05, heretic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible' and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with disabilities - the html option is. Surely? I'd say Flash is mostly a problem because it frequently breaks all usability and accessibility guidelines AND it's the only thing on the site. Which is fine if your site has absolutely no serious purpose, but not good if you're a business. Not that Flash is incapable of being created in an accessible manner or anything; just that it is a format which lends itself more to art than communication. As I've taken to saying... there's a reason it's called Flash and not Substance ;) Most of it boils down to how you use it... just like PDF, it's ok if used carefully; but terrible when used for vil ;) cheers, h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:46:13 +1000, heretic wrote: Maybe architecture is different in america, but here in australia architects write the construction specification which has very little to do with how anything looks. Yes, aesthetics are a really significant part of the job; however so is function... and if they forget the wheelchair ramps they're in some serious trouble. I think the architect attitude is present here in Australia too - I completed the first phase of a project for an architect a little while ago, and it was maturing quite nicely for them (somehow I had even managed to avoid the Google Sandbox - I'd like to know how I managed that!) with traffic growing, but apparently it wasn't speccy enough and they found themselves a tafe student who would redo it in flash. Unfortunately it appears to be completely inaccessible flash (where they are residential architects and their biggest market segment is the older generation :( ) (I should have seen the signs - they kept showing me speccy sites from around the world done in flash with 8 pt type. Bad me.) Now it is dropping out of Google and they want to know why and how they can fix it. *sigh* It is bizarre how architects seem more concerned with form than function when one would expect that if they stopped and compared it to their own work they would see the analogies. I think a common comparison we make is to mention wheelchair access et al for public buildings and yet, your typical architect will make their business sites to impress their competition not their customer. :( Lea ~ looking for a permanent position in Brisbane. Contact me for CV. -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Hi Kornel, 4 seconds and I go back to Mars. I saw the IMAGE, all hundreds kilobytes of it, but I don't know who they are and what they're selling. Well you would, if you looked at the site . . . Small and blurry text. I just skip over blocks of text because I can't read them. Clicking images doesn't zoom them. So why not use Opera? There is no content on this site! Speechless! I can't *find* it either: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ Well your google is different to mine, clearly. Also, if you put foster and partners in my Google, it's number one hit. Obviously, we live in different worlds, in more ways than one :-) Regards, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
IMO this site creates a bad image for their owners rather than a positive one, but personal opinions aside... I wonder if those who seem to like this type of site can answer a few questions to help us put this in perspective: What is the purpose for the existence of this site? What do the owners hope to achieve by investing in this site? How would you/the company behind the site measure success or failure of the site? best, Iva. designer wrote: Hi Kornel, 4 seconds and I go back to Mars. I saw the IMAGE, all hundreds kilobytes of it, but I don't know who they are and what they're selling. Well you would, if you looked at the site . . . Small and blurry text. I just skip over blocks of text because I can't read them. Clicking images doesn't zoom them. So why not use Opera? There is no content on this site! Speechless! I can't *find* it either: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ Well your google is different to mine, clearly. Also, if you put foster and partners in my Google, it's number one hit. Obviously, we live in different worlds, in more ways than one :-) Regards, Bob McClelland, Cornwall (U.K.) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
designer wrote: 4 seconds and I go back to Mars. I saw the IMAGE, all hundreds kilobytes of it, but I don't know who they are and what they're selling. Well you would, if you looked at the site . . . And what if I'm blind or visually impaired? Or are you going to argue that in that case, you won't appreciate the content of the site either, so b*gger off? Small and blurry text. I just skip over blocks of text because I can't read them. Clicking images doesn't zoom them. So why not use Opera? Because there is no Best viewed in Opera button on the page ;-) Why should people change their browsers to accommodate for bad design choices? -- Patrick H. Lauke _ redux (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 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Well you would, if you looked at the site . . . And what if I'm blind or visually impaired? Or are you going to argue that in that case, you won't appreciate the content of the site either, so b*gger off? I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Clicking images doesn't zoom them. So why not use Opera? Because there is no Best viewed in Opera button on the page ;-) Why should people change their browsers to accommodate for bad design choices? In response to the statement about images not zooming - maybe the designer didn't want the images to zoom - perhaps it didn't fit into his design vision. Even though there is all the talk about the web being a fluid medium, etc. etc. - sometimes you have a very specific idea and vision for how you want something to look, feel and behave, and nothing is going to stand in your way of doing that. That's the beauty of the web - it can be whatever you want it to be. If you want to have a stunningly beautiful display of nothing meaningful... do it! If you want to spend hours agonizing over and testing usability and accessibility for impaired users - do it! My two cents Cheers, Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products 903.454.0904 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] w http://www.strombergarchitectural.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Wow. That's one of the most ridiculously short-sighted things I've heard in a long time... and no, I'm not apologising for the pun. The designer that gives half a thought to blind or visually impaired users is the one who will ultimately get more business, particularly given the current shift in thinking towards a more inclusive environment. *particularly* in terms of buildings, fittings and gadgets. Do you really think that people who are blind or visually impaired don't care about design, about nice buildings, about cool gadgets? I know people with sight problems who are fascinated by design - just because it's more difficult to make such a visual medium accessible doesn't mean that you can write off the people who can't access it, just because your creativity only goes so far and you can't be bothered stretching yourself to find interesting ways to make it accessible that fit in with your grand vision. (and I use the word your in the collective sense, not you personally) Do you really, honestly think that there aren't blind or visually impaired people in charge of budgets who comission such things? It's quite sad really. Every time I think that things are taking a step forward in terms of inclusivity, I see stuff like this and realise how far we have to go. pix http://www.pixeldiva.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Collin Davis wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Thank you for reminding me why I spend so much time and effort trying to spread the concept of accessibility...it's because of people like you. In response to the statement about images not zooming - maybe the designer didn't want the images to zoom - perhaps it didn't fit into his design vision. Even though there is all the talk about the web being a fluid medium, etc. etc. - sometimes you have a very specific idea and vision for how you want something to look, feel and behave, and nothing is going to stand in your way of doing that. That's the beauty of the web - it can be whatever you want it to be. If you want to have a stunningly beautiful display of nothing meaningful... do it! If you want to spend hours agonizing over and testing usability and accessibility for impaired users - do it! Again, often on these lists it feels like we're just talking to the converted, but I still see that there is work to be done. -- 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 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
At 01:40 PM 4/20/2005, Collin Davis wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Gosh, that makes perfect sense, since people with visual impairments don't need to have any involvement with or knowledge of building design. Grumpily, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
I think you misunderstand my point - I'm talking about a very small niche here - design sites where the only purpose is to showcase design - not to be accessible, not to have content, not for any other purpose than showcasing design. In the example of the Foster and Partners example, there is an HTML version and there is a Flash version - if both have the same content, what's the point of having two versions? Remember Kioken? Do you think they cared about accessibility? Do you think they could have put out the amazing work they did if they were? Absolutely not. Do you really, honestly think that there aren't blind or visually impaired people in charge of budgets who comission such things? I'm not saying that there aren't - but I do have insight into this very area. The company I work for does work for the worlds largest architectural and design firms. I can say that there is not one single blind or visually impaired person (and I use visually impaired in the since of can't hardly see anything sense, not in the wears glasses or is colorblind sense) working as either: a. a designer or b. anyone who has any control over design issues. When I'm doing prepress work for a company like HKS, WATG, Kerzner, Cannon Design, etc., and we're arguing over Pantone color profiles, uncoated versus coated, the tint of a particular bronze for a patina - do you think I'm talking with somebody who is blind or visually impaired? Obviously not. I'm also obviously talking about print work here and not the web. However, the concept is the same for design showcases on the web. My point was merely this: when you're doing design for design's sake and nothing else, and when content isn't an issue - there is absolutely no reason to even consider blind people in that scenario. The designer that gives half a thought to blind or visually impaired users is the one who will ultimately get more business, particularly given the current shift in thinking towards a more inclusive environment. I can see that you either haven't worked long in the architectural design field, or haven't worked there at all. Go look around at the majority of architectural firm sites - there's a common thread to the majority of them: 1. Flash and 2. Lots of interesting looking stuff, but scant content. When you submit a proposal to an architect or owner, often times your firm will be chosen based solely on how things look... not on what your price is, not on your reputation, not on your experience, but only for the reason of the person looking at what you've done and saying WOW. Again, I think that you misunderstand the viewpoint I'm coming from - I'm not saying accessibility doesn't matter at all, ever. What I'm saying is that there are times when it doesn't, given the target audience and what the designer is trying to accomplish. Collin Davis Web Architect Stromberg Architectural Products 903.454.0904 e [EMAIL PROTECTED] w http://www.strombergarchitectural.com -Original Message- From: pixeldiva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:07 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc) On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Wow. That's one of the most ridiculously short-sighted things I've heard in a long time... and no, I'm not apologising for the pun. The designer that gives half a thought to blind or visually impaired users is the one who will ultimately get more business, particularly given the current shift in thinking towards a more inclusive environment. *particularly* in terms of buildings, fittings and gadgets. Do you really think that people who are blind or visually impaired don't care about design, about nice buildings, about cool gadgets? I know people with sight problems who are fascinated by design - just because it's more difficult to make such a visual medium accessible doesn't mean that you can write off the people who can't access it, just because your creativity only goes so far and you can't be bothered stretching yourself to find interesting ways to make it accessible that fit in with your grand vision. (and I use the word your in the collective sense, not you personally) Do you really, honestly think that there aren't blind or visually impaired people in charge of budgets who comission such things? It's quite sad really. Every time I think that things are taking a step forward in terms of inclusivity, I see stuff like this and realise how far we have to go. pix http://www.pixeldiva.co.uk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
I'm sitting here adding labels to a form that is over 1300 lines of code, for= id=, blah blah blah, this form page has taken me about 5 hours to convert so far. Why? For the sake of accessibility and usability. Why? Because it is important for me to make content available to everyone. Is it easy? Not as easy as ignoring the situation. Flash has its place in the universe. Frankly, I think it is wonderful for kiosks and so far has the best flexibility for pocket pc applications. The architecture site looks great, but the final story is, how usable is it? I would hope that this company has an html version for those doing research and actually needing content. But this isn't really a question of standards, it's about philosophy. So, to get back to standards... Has anyone found a solution for my odd safari list item bug that I mentioned earlier in the day? I know, it's all about me. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:38 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc) At 01:40 PM 4/20/2005, Collin Davis wrote: I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's not for people who are blind or visually impaired. Gosh, that makes perfect sense, since people with visual impairments don't need to have any involvement with or knowledge of building design. Grumpily, Paul ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Perhaps the point here should be: If you have a Flash Site and an HTML Site, then why not make the HTML Site accessible? It takes exactly the same amount of effort and it's not as though your design is extrameley difficult to be realised in standards compliant XHTML/CSS. Why not take a couple of days to redo the HTML Site so that it's useful? Just a thought... Richard ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Collin Davis wrote: I think you misunderstand my point - I'm talking about a very small niche here - design sites where the only purpose is to showcase design - not to be accessible, not to have content, not for any other purpose than showcasing design. I don't think anyone missed your point. It's quite clear that you feel visually impaired--almost can't see nothing or just plain can't see nothing--people have no business concerning themselves with the creation of spaces, barrier-free design, surface stability, textures, *ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities* (doh), and safety. If they can't see it and say wow, then their needs must not be worth addressing. You might want to do some research on Universal Design and how designers and architects are working to make products and facilities usable by all people. I'm not saying that there aren't - but I do have insight into this very area. The company I work for does work for the worlds largest architectural and design firms. I can say that there is not one single blind or visually impaired person (and I use visually impaired in the since of can't hardly see anything sense, not in the wears glasses or is colorblind sense) working as either: a. a designer or b. anyone who has any control over design issues. I guess all the blind people who have homes built use a different firm, because they are definitely in control of design issues. You're looking at this from a works in the field perspective, while the majority of this list is going to be looking at it from the perspective of the end user. This is a prime example of a site and organization that attempts to accomplish it's own goals, rather than addressing the goals of its users. Of course, in the end, the designer and architect will still have to address every single usability and safety guideline set forth by the ADA. I'd think output/input from those people these design measures are meant to benefit, would be desired. I can see that you either haven't worked long in the architectural design field, or haven't worked there at all. Go look around at the majority of architectural firm sites - there's a common thread to the majority of them: 1. Flash and 2. Lots of interesting looking stuff, but scant content. Just because everyone else is doing something wrong does not mean you or anyone else has to follow the same path. Regardless of how long a person has been involved with architectural design, the ability to look beyond the common thread is what really defines greatness. Again, I think that you misunderstand the viewpoint I'm coming from - I'm not saying accessibility doesn't matter at all, ever. What I'm saying is that there are times when it doesn't, given the target audience and what the designer is trying to accomplish. The whole idea behind this group is to promote standards and accessibility online without exception, regardless of the type of content being offered. It's fine to give people with great eyesight some wow stuff to look at, but it's also important to give users with visual impairments alternative content. Accessibility always matters, because if it doesn't matter, then it means people don't always matter and that's just a plain ignorant concept. -- Best regards, M. Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: {Spam?} Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
Vincent Flanders only includes business and/or public service sites as web sites that suck - he has stated in the past that he considers personal sites, entertainment sites etc to fall under different rules. Plus he's a lot more with it than Jakob, and more of a standards evangelist which Mr Neilsen is most definitely not. K. On 4/20/05, Kvnmcwebn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How does the webs sites that suck guy compare to Jacob Neilson? -sort of the same rhetoric eh? To me the web is a functional and creative/expressive medium. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
