W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2009

Re: CHANGE PROPOSAL: Table Summary

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 01:19:20 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0912062319m7b7844edq45b7deb6c3947fe5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Roger Johansson <roger@456bereastreet.com>
Hi Leif,

Ian wrote:

>> [...] I think a better way to get data
>> about this would be a set of usability studies of Web authors followed by
>> double-blind studies of the pages they write.  For example, take six to
>> nine Web developers, and give them the task of marking up some Web pages
>> that include particularly complex data tables in an accessible way that is
>>
>> still aesthetically pleasing to them. The developers would be split into
>> three groups, one being given instructions on using summary="", one being
>> given instructions on writing paragraphs around the table, and one being
>> given no instruction at all. [...]
>>
>> This I think would most effectively demonstrate whether one method or
>> another is better.

You wrote:

> What would this find out? The goals must be specified.

Exactly right Leif, agreed upon goals of any evaluation would be a
first step (if in fact the group wants to do evaluations).

Everything in any evaluation should stem from what the group wants to
investigate without preconceived bias. Also criterion, methodology,
etc could be a huge bone of contention if not agreed upon by the group
in advance.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 07:20:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:41:57 GMT