Re: testing versus expert opinion

hi maciej,

>Can we please not post out-of-context comments from IRC on the working
group list, with the apparent intent of instigating a flamewar?

My intention was not to instigate a "flamewar" my intention was to further
debate on a legitimate subject. The most inflamatory response of the 2 so
far, is yours.

I see the IRC logs as a legitimate source of material to inform the debate
as are many other public sources and as such will continue to quote them. I
have cited the IRC log so people can go and read more if they desire to
understand more fully the context.

>Being unwilling to ever change your own mind, and picking a fight with
people who change their position to be closer to yours, are both
>unproductive.

I for one am willing to change my mind if research and discussion provide a
basis for such a change. That is why i have started doing research and asked
others in the HTML WG to provide data to continue it.

>More significantly, trying to create a dispute where there is none is
trolling. I will do my best to look past it in this case but please try to
>keep this kind of abusive behavior off the mailing list in the future.

The working group is not agreed upon changing the status of the alt from
required to optional and so in this sense there is a dispute
(disagreement).

And how exactly is asking the question
"Just wondered what testing was done before deciding to make the alt
attribute optional? Or was the decision based solely on expert opinion?"

being abusive? provocative maybe.


On 11/09/2007, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>  On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> Hi anne and mjs
>
> <anne> also funny:
> http://html4all.org/pipermail/list_html4all.org/2007-September/000267.html
> <mjs_> yes, actual testing counts for more than the opinion of an official
> expert
> <mjs> the shocking secret is out
>
> cite:http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20070911
>
> Just wondered what testing was done before deciding to make the alt
> attribute optional? Or was the decision based solely on expert opinion?
>
>
>
> Can we please not post out-of-context comments from IRC on the working
> group list, with the apparent intent of instigating a flamewar?
>
>
> If you follow the IRC link in the email link in the IRC link from which
> you quoted, you'll see that I said that making alt optional (even in the
> very rare cases where it was made optional) should be reconsidered in light
> of the testing done. On the other hand, others have argued that designing
> accessibility features solely based on the state of current assistive
> technology is unwise and will slow improvements in the state of
> accessibility.
>
>
> My follow-up comment was that I find the testing more persuasive than the
> opinions of experts. This applies to my own expert opinion as well. I would
> hope that any intellectually honest expert would concede this point.
>
>
> In other recent IRC discussions, I argued that noalt might be valuable as
> a flag for deliberately omitted alt, to regain some of the conformance
> checking benefits of alt being mandatory.
>
>
> In my strongly held opinion, being willing to reconsider one's position in
> light of material evidence is a virtue, and one we will all need to learn to
> make progress in this working group. Being unwilling to ever change your own
> mind, and picking a fight with people who change their position to be closer
> to yours, are both unproductive.
>
>
> More significantly, trying to create a dispute where there is none is
> trolling. I will do my best to look past it in this case but please try to
> keep this kind of abusive behavior off the mailing list in the future.
>
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html