- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:08:40 +0200
- To: ryan <ryan@theryanking.com>, "Robert Burns" <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: "Eric Eggert" <w3c@yatil.de>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:30:30 +0200, ryan <ryan@theryanking.com> wrote: > On Sep 14, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Robert Burns wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> ... >> I don't really understand how anyone can go from Thomas's few >> interesting anecdotes to that conclusion. ... > > I apologize if I've missed a vital part of the conversation (and I'm > certainly no expert on accessibility technologies), but it seems to me > that Tomas is saying that there are no "users who make use of the > [longdesc] attribute". Well, that is his implied conclusion. But his evidence is based on logs from one site, where there is (I contend) virtually no graphics, certainly no very interesting graphics, and not much motivation for users to care what they look like anyway. > Sure, its anecdotal evidence, but if its true, we're talking about > thousands of sites being formally evaluated for their accessibility and > none of the evaluations involves a longdesc. No, we are talking about one site where longdesc was never used, and if I understand correctly *one* blind user looking at a hundred sites who didn't bother to look at the longdescs available. > Tomas ancedotes are relevant to this WG, because it's evidence > supporting the assertion that longdesc is rarely used Indeed, but not terribly strong evidence unfortunately. > and when it is, its rarely used usefully. No. This is a valid conclusion from Hixie's mostly unpublished (and for the rest of us unrepeateable) research, but not at all valid from Tom's. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com http://snapshot.opera.com - Kestrel (9.5α1)
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2007 10:09:03 UTC