W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2012

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:10:49 +0200
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120919131049271019.992c1706@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To me, these data are not new. Anyway, how to interpret the data? We 
should not 'draw our own conclusion' (and when Steve speaks like that, 
he hints that there is an obvious conclusion) - we should try to arrive 
at a shared conclusion.

    The striking thing with Steve's data was this:
    '1938 matches in 86 files.'
    Thus: 1938 longdesc-s in 86 files. That is 22,53
    longdesc attributes per file. It must be a misinformed
    automatic tool that does that, not? It just *cannot*
    be misinformed hand authors.

To me, this is known. Yes, there are systematic misuse and wrong use in 
some automatic tools. Which conclusions can we draw from that?

Leif H S


Silvia Pfeiffer, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:28:21 +1000:
> Thanks for doing this, btw. I think being informed by real-world data
> is important.
> Silvia.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> Note: the sampling was not random it was an intentional sampling of 
>> the top 10,000 web site home pages.
>> 
>> There is some leakage of internal pages from such web sites.
>> 
>> I am not and have not claimed any level of appropriateness of the 
>> sampling I have just made some new data available
>> 
>> As I said draw your own conclusions
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 19 Sep 2012, at 11:11, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis 
>> <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Joshue O Connor
>>> <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
>>>>> I did not have time too look through it, but those I looked at either
>>>>> contained only a "#" or they contained (another) image file. With
>>>>> regard to the first (#) then I agree "misinformed" about the potential
>>>>> negative effect. With regard to image URLs inside @longdesc, then there
>>>>> are image light box solutions - libraries - that  more or less
>>>>> consciously makes incorrect use of longdesc. (Today they would perhaps
>>>>> picked at @data-foo attribute instead - but that was not 'valid' then.)
>>>>> Of the few I scanned, no one contained text.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yikes, maybe it is the former Silvia. Thanks for doing that Leif. It does
>>>> therefore sound like an inappropriate sample population or at least
>>>> partially so.
>>> 
>>> How does the reason why longdesc was misused make it in an
>>> inappropriate sample population for client software developers trying
>>> to make a decision about whether to expose longdesc via UI to their
>>> users?
>>> 
>>> (My problem with these approaches to sampling is that randomly
>>> sampling the web corpus doesn't match the pattern of usage by typical
>>> users, it just tells you about long tail effects, so the relationship
>>> with user impact is unclear.)
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:11:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:11:28 GMT