- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:22:24 -0400
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "wai-liaison@w3.org" <wai-liaison@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Joshue O Connor<joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: > Just for the record, please note that the contents of the @summary were > written by a client and not by Gez himself. So this example doesn't > represent best practice of the use of @summary. That said, this was a client who cared enough to (a) Write an appropriate summary at all (b) Hire Gez, instead of a generic HTML resource (c) Do user testing (If I Recall Correctly) I therefore think this is still about the best that we could expect from institutional sites -- even those under legal mandates. So if there is an algorithm that can do better, it makes sense to specify that instead. (Then there are other questions -- should that automated result be placed in the @summary attribute, or something else? Should it override existing @summary, which may or may not be a human-written good example?) -jJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 18:23:28 UTC