- From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:25:54 +0200
- To: mjs@apple.com
- Cc: bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, john@foliot.ca, rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Correct use is a concern to everyone. Even the instate CP try to help correct that problem. As an argument for a namechange those data are perfect. Leif ------- Opprinnelig melding ------- > Fra: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > Til: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no > Cc: bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, > silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, john@foliot.ca, > rubys@intertwingly.net, public-html-a11y@w3.org > Sendt: 19/9/'12, 19:05 > > > I know that in the past people have questioned Ian Hickson's study of a > large corpus because it was not possible to independently reproduce the > results. > > - Maciej > > On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Leif H Silli > <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > >> 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 17:26:51 UTC