Fic: Don't Let the Bedbugs Bite

[the_wanlorn]

Title: Don't Let the Bedbugs Bite (format=light, style=mine, AO3)
Author: the_wanlorn
Rating: PG
Characters: B.A./Murdock, Face, Hannibal
Spoilers: None
Warning: None
Word Count: 2200
Summary: Murdock doesn't even respect personal space in his sleep.
Notes: As usual with 80% of my ridiculous-est fic, this is written for everysecondtuesday, because what is more cheering-up-able than ridiculous fic about stealth!cuddling and being forced to share a bed?

B.A. hated seeing Face grinning like that.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

My favourite. Please more!!! There is just not enough BA/Murdock fic.

[the_wanlorn]

Thank you!

VpYAlrggcydYHmlMbgK

[(Anonymous)]

I think the core ethical value that is toguht in the book Seedfolks is respect. I think this because all of the neighbors, even though they do not know each other, they still respect the fact that they are people and should be treated as such. All the neighbors treat each other fairly and never desturb other peoples garden. This is why I think respect is the core ethical value that is toguht in the book Seedfolks .

xgTbEXycxftbCRyFjQV

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting. I wonder how much of the prleobm stems from lack of education. I doubt that it is the whole prleobm given that issues aren't always(often even) fixed after they are bought to the designers attention. However as I read though the article I realized that I have taken 5+ college level computer science courses* and none of the addressed the spefic accessibility issues you mentioned at all. In fact IIRC only the most recent of the classes covered accessiblity at all(we spent about a minute on it). I still only kinda understand why the preview screens are a prleobm and thats just because I read sites like this. Even assuming that it doesn't make them actually care more about accessibility it's way easier for someone to realizes for themselves in advance that a feature is going to be inaccessible to scrap it/fix it with methods they already know than it is for someone to:admit they made a mistake, go back to something they though they were done with improvise a new design, integrate the changes into an existing site, program ect and deal with the backlash from non/differently disabled users who liked the site the original implementation. Trying to outright remove the feature would genrally run into the sunk cost faclicy and even more backlash from users who like the feature not to mention the loss of face for who ever decided the feature was a good idea in the first place. On a semi-related note does anyone have any good recouces on how to desing more accessible interfaces?*Which admitatly don't yet include HCI or the other interface heavy courses that would be the most likely source for this sort of info and could be non-indicative of the state of computer design education overall.

FHOTNykeVwgE

[(Anonymous)]

Two things:1) Probably besuace I DON'T have many current web-accessibility hinderances in my life, and therefor have the spoons to do this every now and again, I do sometimes take the time to write to site administrators when this happens. The instances where I've felt like I've been heard have made it worthwhile, but certainly don't make up for all the sites I've ever just closed or clicked away from or never been able to use- or the ones that I can eventually use (by activating flash, sighing, and waiting 10 minutes), but that other people can't use besuace that solution isn't one, for them.2) I work on a web development team and reading your post made me start asking questions higher up about accessibility in the sites we're working on. I know for instance that site accessibility is one of our design considerations, but I don't know how far down into actual granular content authoring and code development those considerations make it. So, thanks for that reminder to use what power I have to make sure at least one site doesn't fall into this category.

TSpHjFnvyQmrhK

[(Anonymous)]

That makes sense. Also, once you've been inspired it's very dfiifcult to be re-inspired.I've seen people do amazing things when their physical state would dictate otherwise due to willpower or inspiration (like the Diehard feat in DnD 3.5).I once witnessed my grandfather stand up and walk with a leg broken in two places. On a wounds scale I think he would have had enough that they were equal to his HP but he had some temporary HP over his maximum so he just kept going... Granted, it didn't last long but adrenalin can do amazing things.On the heroic side I've seen lots of stories where the main character manages to push on till the end of the scene or just long enough to save someone or what have you and then collapses, in spite of incredible wounds. This is how I picture temporary HP working.--Mechanics wise I have a suggestion. What if you received the wound point when you received the damage? IE : Joe Hero got hit with a mace for 3 damage. This is enough damage to inflict 1 wound at the end of the round. Since his HP might go up and down due to other effects (and to avoid tracking temporary HP and mental HP and etc) he records the 1 wound when he receives it. This would allow physical damage to still result in wounds while demoralization simply wouldn't.Blows that do less then 3 damage could either a) Be considered small enough that they aren't wounding or b) could be counted until the third point rather then counting them all up at once at the end of a scene and meaning tracking types of damage over a long term moot.