W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2001

RE: Disability Type Analysis of WCAG 1.0

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 15:47:48 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010825154120.00a65ec0@pop.erols.com>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Chas,

         Once again, you and Kynn are in agreement that what he wrote in no 
way approached the scope of an experiment, although it was an important 
first step towards what may at some point be a more scientific study to 
determine if it is a "problem" or just a part of the process.

         In any event, keep your eye on being part of the solution instead 
of the problem. And, next time you're surfing, look up Net Etiquette and 
save yourself some embarrassment. (Advice from the nearly elderly, ignore 
as you please! <grin>)

                                         Anne


At 12:17 PM 8/25/01 -0700, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>Kynn:
> > That's how you do -this- experiment, Chas.  If you're doing an experiment,
> > of course.  Number crunching isn't experimental and you are barking up
> > the wrong tree (and COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDING SCIENCE!!!
> > oops sorry I got in Chas mode) if you are looking for data analysis to
> > include hypotheses.
>
>I see that using all caps to make things stand out was a bad idea. (So much
>for the null hypothesis.)
>
> >
> > This "experiment" isn't valuable as an experiment -- because it's not
> > one!  It's just the starting point, to stimulate discussion.  It's what
> > needs to be documented FIRST, before you can go ahead and do real
> > science.
>
>My point exactly. Your "experiment" wasn't one. But it will be perceived as
>one because it implies certain conclusions. And some people -- especially
>those with an axe to grind -- will rush to those conclusions. If there is
>any value to this checkpoint count it is as a generator of hypotheses that
>can be tested under controlled conditions. Put simply, I think that we could
>have achieved the same positive result without all the potential negative
>results. And I think it was a bad idea to post your results to the IG list
>rather than the GL list. It is much more likely to be cross-posted and
>misinterpreted there than here.
>
>Chas. Munat

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2001 16:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT