W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

From: Shelley Powers <shelleypowers@burningbird.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:55:10 -0600
Message-ID: <4B78551E.2070404@burningbird.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.
Actually, I would say that means a person should use caution before 
forming a conclusion, and making the attribute obsolete. But we can 
disagree on what it means.

> 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.
Again, though, there could be other factors. I'm not necessarily 
defending longdesc, I leave that to the accessibility folks. The point 
on my original email was to question the soundness of the studies that 
Ian's using as his primary proof for the counter-proposal.
>> 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").

Actually, I was precise. Did you need some kind of number to make it 
seem more precise? Do I need to say, "I'm 99.453% sure that  Ian has not 
provided access to the raw Google index data"? Or something like that? 
Your comment is confusing.

As for the statement about my objection being harmful to the discussion, 
and casting a negative connotation about my concerns ("Gish Gallop") is 
a very personal, and negative, statement to make about my objection, 
Tab. Could you please justify how my objection is "actively harmful"?

Is "harmful" in this context, the same use of "harmful" that has been 
used about longdesc and @summary? I'm trying to figure it out, because I 
can't see how my objections are harmful, at least not with my 
understanding of the word.


> ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 14 February 2010 19:55:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:10 UTC