Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

Note: the sampling was not random it was an intentional sampling of the top 10,000 web site home pages.

There is some leakage of internal pages from such web sites.

I am not and have not claimed any level of appropriateness of the sampling I have just made some new data available

As I said draw your own conclusions

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Sep 2012, at 11:11, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Joshue O Connor
> <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
>>> I did not have time too look through it, but those I looked at either
>>> contained only a "#" or they contained (another) image file. With
>>> regard to the first (#) then I agree "misinformed" about the potential
>>> negative effect. With regard to image URLs inside @longdesc, then there
>>> are image light box solutions - libraries - that  more or less
>>> consciously makes incorrect use of longdesc. (Today they would perhaps
>>> picked at @data-foo attribute instead - but that was not 'valid' then.)
>>> Of the few I scanned, no one contained text.
>> 
>> 
>> Yikes, maybe it is the former Silvia. Thanks for doing that Leif. It does
>> therefore sound like an inappropriate sample population or at least
>> partially so.
> 
> How does the reason why longdesc was misused make it in an
> inappropriate sample population for client software developers trying
> to make a decision about whether to expose longdesc via UI to their
> users?
> 
> (My problem with these approaches to sampling is that randomly
> sampling the web corpus doesn't match the pattern of usage by typical
> users, it just tells you about long tail effects, so the relationship
> with user impact is unclear.)
> 
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 10:19:48 UTC