- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:31:26 -0800
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Robert J Burns wrote: > HI Maciej, > > On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> >> On Feb 26, 2009, at 5:29 PM, Robert J Burns wrote: >> >>> >>>> If you have more objective data, then by all means, present it. >>> >>> The scientific method does not say that if we can find suitable >>> data than we can draw conclusions from it, but if we cannot then >>> we should simply allow one person in a position of leadership to >>> make wild speculation about what data might possibly exist if we >>> had the resources to acquire it. >> >> The scientific method says that to dispute a theory (e.g. "summary >> values are usually poor"), one provides contrary evidence. For >> example, showing actual selection bias in Philip's study, or doing >> a study that shows different results, would be examples of the >> scientific method in action. Contrary evidence is what we use to >> reject a hypothesis. > > Its what the scientific community uses to reject hypothesis. You use > PR style spin. That seems like an unwarranted remark. I don't believe I have used "PR style spin" to reject a hypothesis. I'm not sure what that would even entail. > >> On the other hand, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the >> quality of Philip's study is not the scientific method. It is not >> science to say the study is bad without pointing out specific >> problems or showing contradictory results. > > I'm not spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about the quality of > Philip's study. You're making wild claims about what the study says > in suggesting that I am. Philip himself disclosed the bias of the > sample. I don't even care about that so much. Let's use it as > anecdotal evidence which can still be useful. But let us use > anecdotal evidence for what it is useful for and not claim it can > show us what it cannot. For example it cannot show us what > percentage of pages use summary='' for layout tables or misuse is it > for non-layout tables. I don't recall endorsing Philip's study or making any conclusions about what it claims. Philip says he did not use a high quality method to pick a random sample. But that does not in itself prove a sample bias or selection bias, in particular it does not show the results are non-representative of how summary="" is used. It is well known in statistics that fairly small samples can lead to statistically significant conclusions about the population as a whole. If you'd like to show the results are wrong, you have to show some evidence, not just cast vague aspersions on the methodology. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 02:32:14 UTC