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

(unknown charset) Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:28:59 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100216002859058421.e728cecd@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:39:28 -0500:
> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Sam Ruby, Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:36:23 -0500:
>>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> Ian Hickson, Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:54:07 +0000 (UTC):
>>>>   [...]
>>>>> == Rationale ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> Several studies have been performed. They have shown that:
>>>>   [...]
>>>>> * Most users (more than 90%) don't want the interaction model 
>>>>> that longdesc="" implies. 
>>>>> [http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2/#images]
>>>> You don't find basis in that survey for saying the above. And I 
>>>> said in November [1] that I fail to see how that survey undermines 
>>>> @longdesc.
>>>> 
>>>> Here is why:
>>> I'd like to ask that people only post if they had new information to add.
>> 
>> Well, I say thank you for that characterisation of my message. On 
>> the good side, I feel that I am in the same both as Ian there.
> 
> You said, and I quote: "I said in November [1] that..."

I considered posting a link only - I truly did. But I wanted to express 
myself clearer and link it to the concrete issue at hand.

> There is a *huge* difference between repeating an argument that Ian 
> clearly disagrees with, and capturing an argument in a change 
> proposal.

I have never discussed the WebAIM survey with him. I have never heard 
his opinion about my view.

> My focus here is to get people to stop simply repeating the same 
> arguments over and over and over and and over again, and to actually 
> condense and capture these arguments into a coherent change proposal.
>
> Ian has done that, and I thanked him.

Having ignored to comment my comment of November, he instead in 
February puts forward a letter saying that "WebAIM is in support of my 
view". I must say that it felt relevant to express that I disagreed.
 
> Manu's Microdata change proposal (which ultimately carried, by the 
> way), contained a rebuttal section:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0299.html
> 
> I simply asked you to do the same:

  [...]
> If you want to have a discussion, present new information.  
> Otherwise, this sounds like good stuff to either add to Chaals's 
> proposal or to put into a new proposal.

So far, I have sent Charles an message off list to hear if he feel that 
what I had so say about the WebAIM survey would be relevant/strengthen 
his change proposal - e.g to become part of a rebuttal. I guess that is 
were I stand right now ... 

Regards,
Leif H Silli
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 23:29:32 GMT

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