http://www.expertsrt.com/articles/Cd/

[Anonymous]

I've just been reading through these articles.

I cannot believe that the level of aggression within these articles is a good thing.


One points.

http://www.expertsrt.com/articles/Cd/Formsin4.shtml

some backward Luddites

First of all, Luddites had NOTHING to do with being backward. The term Luddite comes from the north of England in the early 1800's. The Luddite movement was basically about trying to protect their jobs. Machines where being installed and being managed by a handful of workers, putting vast number out of work.

It is WRONG to think of a Luddite as backward. They had a STRONG social conscience and a VERY strong work ethic. They believed in a hard days work and fair pay for it.

OOI. The name Luddite comes from the name "Ted Ludd" which was the name signed on the attacks at the work houses holding the new machinery.

[Huntress]

Roy will be away for a few days bear hunting so you aren't going to get an answer right away on this.  I'll try to remember to mention it to him when he gets back though.

[coral1]

<lurking>

[nicholassolutions]

Well, I hate to admit it, but I never bothered  learn what the history of that word was. However, if you look here

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite
"2. One who opposes technical or technological change."

That is the definition I have always known, and pretty clearly what Roy means, I think. I don't think he means that Luddites are backwards, but rather that he has encountered some backwards Luddites. What he should probably say is "backwards luddites" to make it clear he is using it as an adjective rather than a proper name, which should eliminate any historical connotations (or make it look like he doesn't know which words to capitalize :wink:).

As for the agression, I actually have a story about that. I admit I thought similarly the first time I read that article about a year ago, and it kind of ticked me off  that I was one of the luddites! I'd learned HTML back when CSS was 'a thing of the Future' and wasn't suported by all browsers, and I hadn't done much layout since (and what I did was with tables). But after uttering some profanity at the screen I actually started reading, and that was what got me to learn CSS. It's not that it was the first time I'd heard that CSS was superior to tables and <font> tags, but somehow it was the one that got my attention...it certainly might drive a certain type of person  away though....

[Anonymous]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luddite
"2. One who opposes technical or technological change."

The definition is inappropriate to the term.

The Luddite movement was, in essence, a good thing.

The struggle of the working class to be acknowledged for their efforts in holding society together has NEVER been acknowledged. The modern press and media always show unions as being run by trouble makers. Or, at worst, communist (shock horror a red!!!!). Red bloody herring more likely!

With tricks like minimum wage - the government "imposing" the lowest wage is legally allowed to be paid without consideration of how little this really is - is just one of the nasty little ways of keeping the workers in their place.

In the main, society works when left alone. As soon as church, state or law interfere, the workers get shafted.

Hmm. Not sure where I was going with this. OOI. I DO consider myself working class. My skills may seem to put me outside of that, but any monkey can be taught to do what I do!

[COBOLdinosaur]

Richard you raise two interesting questions.  Issues that I suppose any site with diverse content has to address in terms of content.  Political correctness, and creative control.

I'm just back from hunting but I will take the time tomorrow to try and address this in detail becasue I think a serious discussion about the control of content is important.

[COBOLdinosaur]

Okay two issues.  Let's start with creative control. You are taking issue with style. COBOLdinosaur is arrogant, opinionated and agressive; sometimes to the point of being obnoxious. Some like the style, and some don't. That is the same with any published material. Whether it is newspapers, web pages, magazines, music videos or book.  There will be some who like it and some who don't.  Some will like or dislike it for content, and some will like or dislike it for style. Do you like the style of everyone who writes articles in you local newspaper?

The author decides how they want to present their material. They may also use an editor to assist them in getting it the way they want it.  If a lot of people like the article, the author will get praise via email and other means.  If people hate it, then the author will get lots of criticism via email and other means.  An author may decide to adjust their style based on the email they get, to increase their reach; at the risk of losing some readers.  A publisher primarly is concerned with whether or not the author has an audience, does not create lawsuits, and delivers publishable material.

The only way to avoid having people dislike your style is to have none.  Simply list raw facts and documentation without additional comments.  Dull, and not worth much as site content.  Readers want to know the authors opinion; or they want some humour; or they want a lot of tech talk; or they want plain English; or they want anecdotes; or they want references; or they want personality; or who knows what else. There is now way any one style is going to satify all users.

The best articles are the ones that stimulate discussion, debate, and alternative solutions. Why would anyone want to read an article by COBOLdiosaur.  The particular article you cite, has the higest hit rate on my sites;  generates the most email, and the link has been posted by others on forums across the Internet.  Some people don't like the style and won't read it.  Some people don't like Eric Myers style and don't read him. In the debate on approaches to building web sites some people read and support me; some prefer Jeff Zelman's approach.  The same for every other tech author on the Internet.

My response to all who criticize my articles, or the articles of anyone publishing on the Internet, is to write and article using what you think is appropriate style.  There are a million blogs and only a handful with any real following.  The style on those handful vary, but they have one thing in common; they have something of value to say.  As long as an article has something of value to say and does not flame or use profanity.  I see no reason why ERT would not publish it.  Given that we have commited to authors having creative control, I see no way we can justify telling them they need to change their style to what?!?

Now as to political correctness.  Luddite or luddite as defined does not seem to be aimed at any group.  There are no more Luddites, and perhaps the lower case usage is more appropriate, but unless there is some cross-cultural thing I am missing that makes it a really offensive reference, I cannot see where ERT would want to start limiting the use of words that have changed meaning over time.

I am an advocate of avoiding politically incorrect terms within reason, but not in creating new taboos in terms of limiting the use of words because a third or fourth definition might offend some group; especially when there does seem to be an identifiable group.  Are there still Luddites or some group that would formally be identified as Luddites? Is a negative reference not allowed because someone is being offnded by it, or because there is an objection to the use of the word in general? How far do we limit our use of words and extend the list of persons, places, groups, things that may not be discussed?

[coral1]

Said like a True Anarchist.   :notworthy:

[nicholassolutions]

RQ, I basically agree with everything you've said in your last post (with the exception that I've seen unions do some pretty crappy things firsthand -- at least in the US, they're as prone to corruption as the government or any other organization). But I'm not sure how much bearing it has on Cd&'s article. I think we should basically take a hands-off approach with this stuff (not that I think you're suggesting we censor anything), and let authors know so they can make changes if they wish. On this site as in life, everything you do reflects on you and contributes to other people's perceptions of who you are. It should be entirely up to each individual how these perceptions are shaped, for better or worse, within reasonable bounds as presented in the site MA. I, for one, *hate* political correctness -- I'm no anarchist, but I think unless people are doing things that are truly harmful to others, they should be left alone by the 'government'.

Luddite is by far not the first word that this 'bastardization', if you will, has happened to. Think of the word Puritan, for example, and all the connotations it carries. When people talk about puritanism, they are rarely referring to the people who came over to America hundreds of years ago, and I'm sure those settlers would probably take issue with many of the ways their activities have been interpreted by modern society.

Oh well, now *I* forgot where I was going with this  :lol:

[Anonymous]

Hmm. Interesting. I'm so used to being nice to the customer, that the idea that I can actually tell them they've done it wrong, have a screw loose or just plain stupid actually seems wrong!

I've only ever written user documentation. After nearly 20 years of this, you get "stuck" with being nice, polite, unoffensive, patient, plain.

So. Time to learn to change.

Maybe my issue with the style is that I want to learn and don't want to be talked to like I'm the idiot! Maybe I just take things too personally. Ha. Thinking THAT probably means I'm extremely arrogant and think everything IS targeted at me. Hey! Come to think of it, I AM arrogant! Ha! Breakthrough.

Right. From now on, I'll judge the content and not the style. Even though the style seems to wind me up a bit. The content is great though.




As an aside, CD€, what screen reader software do you use? Whilst we can support/test IE/FF/Opera/Safari fairly easily, not all of us have speakers.

What would be useful would be a screen->speech->text conversion, so we can see what is being said for a page. That way we could "see" what you "hear".

[COBOLdinosaur]

This is a good way to understand what it is like for someone using a reader:

http://www.webaim.org/simulations/screenreader

[COBOLdinosaur]

BTW,

I don't user a reader, I have a blind friend who uses JAWS.... best feedback in the world is to have someone who MUST do something in a particular way.

[Anonymous]

This is a good way to understand what it is like for someone using a reader:

http://www.webaim.org/simulations/screenreader

Ok. I now don't know if I've been had or not.

I'm not getting anything from that link. Not even a timeout. So either CD! is being VERY ironic (and oh, that is seriously funny), or the site's down.

Either way, I think I "hear" your point. Defening silence.

[COBOLdinosaur]

It could be down.  It is not the greatest site in the world.  They do a very large download for the simulation, and I think they probably don't have a enough bandwidth to handle very many requests;   however a blank screen probably is appropriate to demonstrate what a blind person gets from the average site.

There is nothing we can do to make it a perfect world, and helping one group, may mean making it more difficult for others.  All we can do is be aware that not everyone has the ideal setup.  There are people working with old computers because they are living in places where the cost of a new computer is 6 months wages; those who are on slow connections.  The blind.  Those with limited mobility who cannot use a conventional mouse. Even minor stuff like tha bility to see the difference in some or all colors; and other vision imperfections create problems.

The closest to a perfect web page is probably:black on white, nothing but text centered in a 7 in wide column, using a bold font, with neither size or font family specified.  With all links being underlined urls.

No images, no scripting, no special effects, and nothing but 100% standard code for both the HTML and the CSS.

But I want to see anyone convince a client that they should do a site that way. You have to build sites for the majority who do not have all those limiting problems, just be careful not to cut off the kid in a third world country connecting with a 28k modem on a 486 limited to the 2 hours a day he can afford to pay for; trying to learn enough to put his 180 IQ to work for the rest of the world.

The Internet has open the world up to US; but in some places in the world, adn for some afflicted people they are only able to look back through a tiny dirty window. We can help them see more; or we can shine a blinding light through the window so we can use our videos to show how advanced we are.