Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

Maciej, e.g. Janina did not reject Steve's findings. She only questioned 
their relevance. It would be more interesting - now - to conclude about: 
how to interpret the misuse and why it is negative or does not matter. Leif 


------- Opprinnelig melding -------
> Fra: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
> Til: bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com
> Cc: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no, 
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, john@foliot.ca, 
> rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Sendt: 19/9/'12,  18:43
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 3:11 AM, 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.)
>
> Some browser vendors (including Apple) have the ability to gather data on 
> real-world usage as actually observed by users. Generally for privacy 
> considerations we cannot log individual URLs. But we could log data such 
> as:
>
> - What proportion of images have a longdesc attribute
> - What proportion of those images have obviously wrong longdesc URLs 
> (empty, #, appears to be an image, top-level URL of a domain, url of the 
> same page that contains the image, etc)
>
> Would folks see such data as more credible? It would be significant 
> effort and we could not reveal the raw numbers. I suspect many would 
> reject such data as not publicly reproducible.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 17:01:36 UTC