On Sep 11, 2007, at 4:14 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
Hi Maciej,
the reason why i named you and anne is that the conversation i cited
on IRC was between you and anne. Also it was due to it being pointed
out to me by a friend (Gez lemon) that my writing style was somewhat
abrupt, so I should attempt to be more personable (obviously didn't
wrrk in this case).
No, and I think your point would have been better made without
contructing it to look like a personal attack. It is generally
friendlier to focus on ideas, not people, if you are going to disagree.
I don't know who decided to make alt optional, what i do assume is
that people such as yourself and anne who interact with Ian hickson
on a regular basis and are involved in the whatwg so would have a
better understanding of why decisions were made about the changes in
the spec.
I have had not interaction with him on this subject that isn't
publicly logged or archived, so you have the same
I am not part of any "self-styled accessibility advocate camp" as
you describe in what i consider to be a mocking and demeaning way.
I correspond with a wide range of people including those that you
choose to call the accessibility camp.
My apologies, that remark was a little overheated. However - I've seen
a pattern in the past few months of people quoting remarks (mine and
those of others) from outside forums out of context and posting
dramatic emails on the working group mailing list. It seems that
everyone who has made this kind of post sees themselves as an
accessibility advocate and is on the list at <http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/
>. It also seems that this mailing list was made in part to
coordinate this kind of attack: <http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/2007-August/000054.html
>. So perhaps you can see why I might be sensitive to emails that
appear to fit this pattern, even though yours was considerably less
hostile than many emails along these lines.
What i don't quite understand is why it is acceptable to demean, and
make jokes about people and their opinions on IRC or in emails such
as this, but when these are called out you cry foul?
The message that started all this was: <http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/2007-September/000267.html
>. Yes, I think I am allowed to comment when people take my
constructive remarks and make them try to sound like part of something
sinister.
I also think commenting on IRC, or indeed on external mailing lists
like the html4all list, is very different from posting to the working
group list, in a large part because paying attention to such
additional fora is voluntary, so it does not consume the time of
hundreds of people.
So please don't try to take the moral high ground, as that is
nothing but hypocracy.
I think my response was not misleading with regards to the original
content referenced, nor did it create a dispute where there is none,
nor did it needlessly consume the time of the whole working group.
Regards,
Maciej
On 11/09/2007, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Removing public-html from Cc list.
On Sep 11, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
> hi maciej,
>
> >Can we please not post out-of-context comments from IRC on the
> working group list, with the apparent intent of instigating a
> flamewar?
>
> My intention was not to instigate a "flamewar" my intention was to
> further debate on a legitimate subject.
Asking provocative rhetorical questions on a public mailing list based
on comments in an external forum is an attack tactic, not a legitimate
means of debate. Asking people to explain actions taken by others they
are seen to be associated with is also an attack tactic.
> The most inflamatory response of the 2 so far, is yours.
>
> I see the IRC logs as a legitimate source of material to inform the
> debate as are many other public sources and as such will continue to
> quote them. I have cited the IRC log so people can go and read more
> if they desire to understand more fully the context.
Dropping context and asking people people to follow a chain of links
to find it is the sort of thing that makes people feel attacked and
compelled to defend themselves. Even more importantly, you dropped the
context that neither Anne nor I made any edits to the spec ourselves,
so asking us to give the basis for such decisions is not appropriate
in the first place. That context is not to be found in the IRC logs,
yet the framing of your email appears to hold us somehow responsible.
> >Being unwilling to ever change your own mind, and picking a fight
> with people who change their position to be closer to yours, are
> both >unproductive.
>
> I for one am willing to change my mind if research and discussion
> provide a basis for such a change. That is why i have started doing
> research and asked others in the HTML WG to provide data to continue
> it.
>
> >More significantly, trying to create a dispute where there is none
> is trolling. I will do my best to look past it in this case but
> please try to >keep this kind of abusive behavior off the mailing
> list in the future.
>
> The working group is not agreed upon changing the status of the alt
> from required to optional and so in this sense there is a dispute
> (disagreement).
You framed your email as if you have some bone to pick with myself and
Anne. Your email was addressed to us in addition to the list, and the
salutation named us directly: "Hi anne and mjs". Such "open letters"
are a form of needless grandstanding and divisiveness that the chairs
have specifically asked us not to engage in. Especially when there is
no actual substantive disagreement. If the point you care about is
making alt mandatory, what is the value in attacking me?
> And how exactly is asking the question
> "Just wondered what testing was done before deciding to make the alt
> attribute optional? Or was the decision based solely on expert
> opinion?"
>
> being abusive? provocative maybe.
Your email was clearly meant as an attack, or at the very least to
make people appear foolish, by dropping the relevant context. Based on
your remark here, it was clearly deliberate, and you seem to think
this kind of behavior is acceptable. I am frankly tired of this sort
of behavior from the self-styled accessibility advocate camp, and if
you continue to do it I will call you on it.
Furthermore, you choose to provoke me for coming around to agreeing
with you more. I hope you can see this this is not only abusive but
foolish as well, if your goal is to persuade people and not just to
score cheap debating points.
I guess in summary, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Why
call me out by name? The only reasons I can think of is if you
actually disagree with something I said (which you don't appear to) or
if you are just trying to stir up trouble.
Regards,
Maciej
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
