Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Some thoughts
Re: Some thoughts
From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:28:49 -0500
> How do you know he didn't read the manual and not understandd it?
> Obviously he read the dang manual otherwise he wouldn't have been able
> to get rockbox installed, am I right?
I know he didn't read it because when he was directed to the manual, his
response was "Which manual?" after which he went on to explain that he
was unable to find the manual on our site. Perhaps he had a friend
install Rockbox for him? I do not know, but if you'd read the
conversation you'd be aware he admitted to be unaware of the existence
of the manual.
>> Nobody is assigned to do this. Nor is anyone paid. You're welcome to
>> take my place and attempt to help people, as long as you also
>> encourage them to follow the list guidelines. Among those - don't top
>> post. One you yourself have apparently ignored.
> There you go again. In fact, I might add, he wasn't top posting. How
> can you call that top posting?
Maybe there's a definition issue here. Top posting is when you include
previous entries from the thread after your response. Check his message,
it contains the previous message after his response. If you thought top
posting meant something else, I can understand the confusion. But he did
top post. We've covered what the phrase "top posting" means before on
the list. It's also possible you have your email client configure to
hide the quoted text, or otherwise aren't seeing it, but it's there in
the message I was responding to.
> He's not stating that at all. WHat, in fact, he's trying to say is
> that no matter how accessible the website, a blind folks might still
> have a hard time navigating the site, maybe because they don't have
> the knolidge they need to use a screen reader with a web browser or
> they're not sure what part of the manual to look at.
And as I've said, if they encounter such problems they need only speak
up and say the site is causing difficulties. But the order it goes is
this: 1) Person asks question from the manual. 2) Person is directed to
the manual. 3) Person has difficulty with the site or manual, and
returns with further questioning and a statement of this. 4) We attempt
to help person.
All they need to do is indicate what difficulties they were having,
either in understanding or navigation, to indicate they'd made some
effort to educate themselves first. This user made it clear he wasn't
even aware the manual existed, and took offense at being directed to it,
so your response here is irrelevant - he at no point mentioned
difficulty with navigation.
>> This list isn't here to answer questions already covered in the
>> manual. We'd like to keep the level of "noise" fairly low. That means
>> asking people to read the manual first, as well as FAQs when
>> appropriate. These weren't created to be ignored, and many of us
>> subscribed to the list do want to help, but don't want to receive
>> dozens of emails about things we've already spent our time writing
> Really? What kind of questions would those be? Seriously I know
> there's a manual and all, but sony has a tech support page for those
> who read the manual and still have problems.
Questions from people who've read the manual and still have problems are
welcome, as I've said. I don't understand what you're asking here,
because you seem to be reiterating my own statement as a question.
>> I could claim you're equally hard-nosed in your unwillingness to read
>> the basic documentation before asking for help. We're happy to answer
>> questions, but not those we've spent plenty of time already answering
>> in the form of our manual. If that manual is unclear, on the other
>> hand, let us know where and we'll do our best to clarify and explain
>> what it says.
> There you go, yet again. Unwillingness to read? He's read it, he said
> in his message. How can you asume he hasn't?
He said in his message that he didn't know a manual existed. How can you
interpret that as "He's read it"?
> I don't mind reading a manual. Its when I get yelled at for not
> reading it is when it annoys me, even though I have read it. Just
> because someons message says nothing about the manual doesn't mean
> they haven't read it! You readily asume the person hasn't read the
> manual so you point them to it.
If they ask a question that's clearly answered in the manual, without
referencing any information from the manual, I'll point them to it, yes.
If they said "I read X in the manual, and don't understand it" then I'll
try to help them further. I don't get what's so confusing about this -
if you show no sign whatsoever of reading the manual you'll be pointed
to it. If you say "Which manual?" when it's brought up, this reinforces
the belief that it wasn't read (as that user did).
Your responses here seem like you're confused about what actually
happened, as you've basically defended someone for reading the manual
who admitted he didn't know the manual existed. At no point did Maurice
claim he'd read the manual, and his last question to the list was still
asking where to find it. He never mentioned accessibility difficulties
either, claiming to have perused the site without being able to find it.
Honestly, did you read the content of Maurice's messages to the list?
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
Received on 2009-04-23