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

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:47:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4A76EA74.4020307@lachy.id.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Charles McCathieNevile indicated that the WCAG guidelines was the result 
> of a process that lasted a decade, and I will assume involved much peer 
> review.  When I pointed you to it, your response[1] was 'It appears this 
> guidance was written before research regarding the misuse of summary="" 
> was presented.'  In other words, in less than nine months, you believe 
> you have access to compelling data that overturns a decade of research.

The problem is that the PFWG have not presented their research.  They 
have only provided position statements and fallacious arguments from 
authority that lack any empirical evidence whatsoever.

Where are their usability studies that they've performed over the past 
decade?  Where are the results that illustrate the effects that real 
world values of summary have on the enhancement of accessibility for 
users of assistive technology?  In fact, where are their studies that 
show it would even help under ideal conditions?  Where is their analysis 
of how how authors really use summary in practice?  Do they have any 
empirical, scientific research at all to support their case?

So far, the only thing that even comes close to a usability study that 
has been presented is the observation of a single blind user that Joshue 
recorded, who stated that he thought the information provided by the 
summary was too much, and that clearly doesn't support their case too well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMGBX8gAM6g#t=0m30s

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 14:03:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:50 UTC