Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Shelley Powers
<shelleypowers@burningbird.net> wrote:
> Now, those disclaimers were very well done. Notice the items marked **. The
> survey editors specifically warned against using the results to form a
> conclusion.

No they did not.  They said that "care should be taken" in
interpreting the results.

Note as well, of course, that this disclaimer applies to a study that
was not done by Ian, and which provides the totals for each answer
inline in the study (I'm not sure if the actual raw data is
available).

Finally, the relevant part of the survey (the question concerning
preferred treatment of a complex image) was very clear - the current
longdesc behavior was *extremely* unpopular compared to the other
proposed methods (all of which used existing technologies).  The only
less popular treatment of the image was ignoring it altogether.

> I have a degree in Psychology (industrial emphasis), in addition to a degree
> in computer science, and most of my time spent within the discipline was
> focused on testing, research, and how to conduct these types of studies. I'm
> not an expert, I only have a BA not an advanced degree, but the points I
> made are a fundamental, and not something I'm making up.

If your expertise is relevant, then you can articulate your problems
with the studies used more precisely, as Maciej requested.
Vaguely-stated but impressive-sounding objections are not just
useless, but *actively harmful* to the discussion (see "Gish Gallop").

~TJ

Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 18:51:52 UTC