Re: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> Based on the discussion, I've come up with the following proposed criteria:
>> 2. Does not list specific techniques.
> I think we do a disservice to users by not mentioning explicit techniques.

Personally, I don't care either way about this point, but there were 
several others who did not agree with doing so.  I'll let those people 
defend this particular criteria.

But I also don't understand why you think it's better to list specific 
techniques in the text itself, rather than just referring to the 
specific section of UAAG that covers this already:

>> 3. Informatively references the techiques described in UAAG (either 1.0
>>     or the 2.0 draft)
> We already have a reference to UAAG in the "Recommended reading" section.
> I don't think we should have fine-grained cross-references throughout the
> spec, because that way lies a maintenance nightmare, and it's not actually
> that useful (UA implementors should read the whole UAAG).

>> 5. Does not imply the use of futuristic technologies.
> Image recogition is not a futuristic technology, and nor is OCR.

I didn't say those techniques were.  But the previous discussion showed 
how the text was being interpreted as implying the use of unrealistic 
technologies and my point here was that any new text should avoid the 
same issue.

>> 6. Does not imply that any technique can reliably determine author
>>     intent.
> Agreed.
>> 7. Indicates that it is about providing additional information about the
>>     image, which may help the user to understand the image's content or
>>     purpose.
> It's about aiding the user's comprehension of the page;

I don't see how this is any way contradicts what I said.  Understanding 
the purpose of the image does aid in the user's comprehension of the 
page, so I don't see any real disagreement here.

> if that can be done without the user ever being informed of the
> image, then I don't see why that should be non-conforming. So I
> disagree with this.

I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm not sure how you interpreted what I 
said in that way.

>> In my own view, the current text [...] partially fails #5 by mentioning
>> "heuristics" without clearly describing what would or would not be
>> classified as such
> How can one allow any repair technique while enumerating all the
> techniques? I don't think those two requirements are compatible.

My point here was not to suggest that every technique should be listed, 
but that you should not use the term heuristics because it seems to 
convey the idea of unrealistic/futuristic technologies.  Just refer to 
them as techniques instead.

Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software

Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 11:46:14 UTC