- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:12:11 +0100
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis 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.) I think you answered your own question there Ben.
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:12:42 UTC