- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 13:09:23 +0100
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Denis Boudreau (WebConforme)" <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
- Message-ID: <55687cf80706230509y9243b8bke3c817e613d98aae@mail.gmail.com>
>Feel free to catch me (Hixie) on IRC when >I'm at work and if I have the data I can provide it. thanks Ian, will do >http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html >...but it's long overdue for an update. I'll see what I can do. please do >relying on just one set of proprietary numbers that have >been sanitised for public consumption is certainly better than nothing but >it's a far cry from ideal. agreed, especially when the sanitised version does not contain data about the attribute in question. On 23/06/07, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Steven Faulkner wrote: > > > > Why is it that you have access to data ((Source: Unpublished Google > > internal survey of several billion pages conducted in September 2006.) > > from an unpublished survey that you can quote seletively to back up your > > arguments against the inclusion of accessibility related attributes, but > > other members of the group who are trying to argue for their continued > > inclusion cannot draw on and interpret the same data for the benefit of > > thier arguments? > > He asked me for the data on IRC. Feel free to catch me (Hixie) on IRC when > I'm at work and if I have the data I can provide it. > Why not provide access to the data to all members of the working group > > rather than pulling out selective results to benefit a particular > > argument? > > For commercial reasons, I can't publish the raw data. Some of the > sanitised data from earlier studies is at: > > http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html > > ...but it's long overdue for an update. I'll see what I can do. It would > be cool if other members of the group with similar resources could publish > similar studies; relying on just one set of proprietary numbers that have > been sanitised for public consumption is certainly better than nothing but > it's a far cry from ideal. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 12:09:29 UTC