- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:23:06 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Lachlan Hunt<lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> >> Charles McCathieNevile indicated that the WCAG guidelines was the result >> of a process that lasted a decade, and I will assume involved much peer >> review. When I pointed you to it, your response[1] was 'It appears this >> guidance was written before research regarding the misuse of summary="" was >> presented.' In other words, in less than nine months, you believe you have >> access to compelling data that overturns a decade of research. > > The problem is that the PFWG have not presented their research. They have > only provided position statements and fallacious arguments from authority > that lack any empirical evidence whatsoever. The same could be said for the position made on summary. The so-called empirical evidence that has been provided to remove summary is tainted, and is anecdotal, not based on scientific research. > > Where are their usability studies that they've performed over the past > decade? Where are the results that illustrate the effects that real world > values of summary have on the enhancement of accessibility for users of > assistive technology? In fact, where are their studies that show it would > even help under ideal conditions? Where is their analysis of how how > authors really use summary in practice? Do they have any empirical, > scientific research at all to support their case? > Where are the usability studies to support making summary obsolete? Where are the carefully crafted research projects that support the views of Ian et al? Where are the studies that definitively show that summary is "harmful" as Ian has unequivocally stated? They do not exist. Let me say that again: they do not exist. > So far, the only thing that even comes close to a usability study that has > been presented is the observation of a single blind user that Joshue > recorded, who stated that he thought the information provided by the summary > was too much, and that clearly doesn't support their case too well. > One video in uncontrolled circumstances is not effective from either viewpoint. Let me repeat one more time: there is no study that proves, definitively, that summary is harmful. There is no study that proves, conclusively, that summary is never being used correctly. There is no study that proves, beyond a doubt, that the reason summary is being used incorrectly is because the text isn't visible to sighted users. There is nothing more than anecdotal happenstance data, reviewed by those with already predisposed viewpoints. There is nothing remotely scientific about this. Repeat, last time: there is nothing scientific about the methodology being applied with regard to making summary "obsolete but conforming". There is only bias, and opinion. Now, I don't know what the PF group has, or what other accessibility groups have. But I have to wonder why there is such a persistent demand for more justification from the accessibility supporters than can be met by those advocating that summary be made obsolete. One doesn't have to be an accessibility expert, or even supporter, to begin to wonder why the PF group, and others who support accessibility, have to go through that many more hoops than other groups who have had influence on the HTML 5 specification. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMGBX8gAM6g#t=0m30s > > -- > Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software > http://lachy.id.au/ > http://www.opera.com/ > > Shelley
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 14:23:51 UTC