W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:16:38 -0500
Message-ID: <4B785A26.1030605@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Shelley Powers
>> <shelleypowers@burningbird.net> wrote:
>>  
>>> Now, those disclaimers were very well done. Notice the items marked 
>>> **. The
>>> survey editors specifically warned against using the results to form a
>>> conclusion.
>>>     
>>
>> No they did not.  They said that "care should be taken" in
>> interpreting the results.
>>
>>   
> Actually, I would say that means a person should use caution before 
> forming a conclusion, and making the attribute obsolete. But we can 
> disagree on what it means.
> 
>> Note as well, of course, that this disclaimer applies to a study that
>> was not done by Ian, and which provides the totals for each answer
>> inline in the study (I'm not sure if the actual raw data is
>> available).
>>
>> Finally, the relevant part of the survey (the question concerning
>> preferred treatment of a complex image) was very clear - the current
>> longdesc behavior was *extremely* unpopular compared to the other
>> proposed methods (all of which used existing technologies).  The only
>> less popular treatment of the image was ignoring it altogether.
>>
>>   
> Again, though, there could be other factors. I'm not necessarily 
> defending longdesc, I leave that to the accessibility folks. The point 
> on my original email was to question the soundness of the studies that 
> Ian's using as his primary proof for the counter-proposal.
>>> I have a degree in Psychology (industrial emphasis), in addition to a 
>>> degree
>>> in computer science, and most of my time spent within the discipline was
>>> focused on testing, research, and how to conduct these types of 
>>> studies. I'm
>>> not an expert, I only have a BA not an advanced degree, but the points I
>>> made are a fundamental, and not something I'm making up.
>>>     
>>
>> If your expertise is relevant, then you can articulate your problems
>> with the studies used more precisely, as Maciej requested.
>> Vaguely-stated but impressive-sounding objections are not just
>> useless, but *actively harmful* to the discussion (see "Gish Gallop").
> 
> Actually, I was precise. Did you need some kind of number to make it 
> seem more precise? Do I need to say, "I'm 99.453% sure that  Ian has not 
> provided access to the raw Google index data"? Or something like that? 
> Your comment is confusing.
> 
> As for the statement about my objection being harmful to the discussion, 
> and casting a negative connotation about my concerns ("Gish Gallop") is 
> a very personal, and negative, statement to make about my objection, 
> Tab. Could you please justify how my objection is "actively harmful"?
> 
> Is "harmful" in this context, the same use of "harmful" that has been 
> used about longdesc and @summary? I'm trying to figure it out, because I 
> can't see how my objections are harmful, at least not with my 
> understanding of the word.

How about the two of you figure this out off-list, and then report back?

I'd like to keep public-html for technical discussions.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 20:17:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT