- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:05:39 -0700
- To: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, john@foliot.ca, rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org
I know that in the past people have questioned Ian Hickson's study of a large corpus because it was not possible to independently reproduce the results. - Maciej On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Maciej, e.g. Janina did not reject Steve's findings. She only questioned their relevance. It would be more interesting - now - to conclude about: how to interpret the misuse and why it is negative or does not matter. Leif > > ------- Opprinnelig melding ------- >> Fra: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> >> Til: bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com >> Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, john@foliot.ca, rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org >> Sendt: 19/9/'12, 18:43 >> >> >> On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:11 AM, 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.) >> >> Some browser vendors (including Apple) have the ability to gather data on real-world usage as actually observed by users. Generally for privacy considerations we cannot log individual URLs. But we could log data such as: >> >> - What proportion of images have a longdesc attribute >> - What proportion of those images have obviously wrong longdesc URLs (empty, #, appears to be an image, top-level URL of a domain, url of the same page that contains the image, etc) >> >> Would folks see such data as more credible? It would be significant effort and we could not reveal the raw numbers. I suspect many would reject such data as not publicly reproducible. >> >> Regards, >> Maciej >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 17:06:11 UTC