RE: Disability Type Analysis of WCAG 1.0

[C Munat] if in my replies I seem to be working up a sweat, remember
that I'm just having fun exercising. In other words, don't take my posts too
seriously. This isn't a flame.]

[Paul] Don't worry, I am not interpreting your replies as flames. Your
responses are energetic, which I commend. They can also be condescending at
times, which can be a bit tiring to read.

[C Munat] it may be outright LYING to us.

[Paul] Statistics can be used for any purpose, to prove or disprove
anything, and they can sound "scientific" in the process. Numbers have the
capacity to sound official, and to be misleading at the same time. This is a
dangerous combination, I agree. Personally, I read Kynn's post with
interest, and with my usual reservations about statistics. Your warnings are
good, if melodramatic.

[C Munat] Don't believe me? Ask any scientist.

[Paul] Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one on this list who has done formal
research. Many of us are aware of the pitfalls involved in any form of
inquiry.

[C Munat] The point of any experiment is to test a hypothesis. . .

[Paul] Kynn's analysis was not an experiment. It was a statistical analysis.
Nothing more or less.

[C Munat] The real question, as I mentioned previously, is ARE THERE SOME
NEEDS THAT
WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING?

[Paul] Agreed. No need to shout.


Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu

Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 19:41:43 UTC