- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:30:02 +1000
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Joshue O Connor wrote: > Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> Don't Reinvent the Wheel >> >> Evaluate the success and failure of existing solutions. For those >> that have proven reasonably successful in terms of benefits, usage >> and implementation, consider adopting, retaining and/or improving >> upon them in preference to dismissing and inventing new features. > > @summary, headers/id, @alt. They work, keep 'em (while rolling in > improvements of course). The benefits, usage and implementation support of the alt attribute is well known, so it is already included and there is no intention of removing it. However, the benefits, usage and implementation of the summary, headers and longdesc attributes are not as well known or documented, which is why more research is/was needed for them. I think it's just a matter of different starting assumptions. Some people simply assume by default that features like headers, summary and longdesc have practical benefits and then argue that they should be included by default based on that assumption. The better approach is to assume as little as possible, question any assumptions or assertions that people make, document the benefits, usage and implementation support of the features and reach conclusions based on that evidence. (On a related note, I think the research that Ben Millard has done for table headers recently, providing lots of real world examples and analysis, is awesome! That is the kind of contribution I'd like to see from others, particularly on issues like alternative content for multimedia, longdesc, summary, etc.) >> Pave the Cowpaths >> >> Investigate existing practices and design or adopt features that >> meet the desires of authors. > > While yes it is important to meet the needs of authors, it is more > important that authors output code that meets the needs of users. Yes, but that particular issue is covered by other design principles. I think it's important to keep within the scope of each individual principle and I don't think we should try to address the needs of users directly within a principle about investigating authoring practices. However, users do benefit from this principle indirectly because the things that authors try to do are often influenced by the needs and desires of their users. > BTW - Following a bunch of cows where they will is a recipe for > disaster, even if they can build websites. Following the exact path taken by cows probably will lead to disaster, but that's not what this principle is about. The correct analogy is to look at where they're trying to get - probably a greener field in this case - and find an appropriate solution that helps them get there. For example, if we observe them trying to cross a creek and sometimes they get stuck, a good solution would probably be to build a bridge over it. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 05:31:12 UTC