W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: PF Response: @Summary

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:22:24 -0400
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560907071122x52af6f52na65fda146fd8ca11@mail.gmail.com>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "wai-liaison@w3.org" <wai-liaison@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Joshue O Connor<joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
> Just for the record, please note that the contents of the @summary were
> written by a client and not by Gez himself. So this example doesn't
> represent best practice of the use of @summary.

That said, this was a client who cared enough to

(a)  Write an appropriate summary at all
(b)  Hire Gez, instead of a generic HTML resource
(c)  Do user testing (If I Recall Correctly)

I therefore think this is still about the best that we could expect
from institutional sites -- even those under legal mandates.  So if
there is an algorithm that can do better, it makes sense to specify
that instead.

(Then there are other questions -- should that automated result be
placed in the @summary attribute, or something else?  Should it
override existing @summary, which may or may not be a human-written
good example?)

-jJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 18:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT