W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: statistics - for differences between accessible and non-accessible sites?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:12:13 -0500
Message-ID: <001d01c19acb$7ed7e040$c2f20141@cp286066a>
To: "Pat Byrne" <pat@glasgowwestend.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
what makes it different is the legal ground and the relative lack of
statistics.  I think you will find though that well
developped/accessible sites are used and re-used much more often than
those on the other side of the coin.  I think there is some neilson
stuff on this.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Byrne" <pat@glasgowwestend.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: statistics - for differences between accessible and
non-accessible sites?

Thanks for your thoughts Simon - and everyone else who has replied so

One of the reasons I asked this question is that I was reading an
article on
marketing a couple of days ago - and the message was (although not in
exactly these words):

"If you want to increase the impact of your offer - don't just tell your
potential customers that they can expect improvements - say how much of

It specifically mentions the use of statistics and 'concrete' examples.

Why should selling accessible Web design be any different? Is there
something specific that makes this area different or is it just -  'no I
don't agree that this is ever a useful strategy'?


on 11/1/02 4:40 pm, Simon White at simon.white@jkd.co.uk wrote:

> Agreed, but only when stats are applied to something specific. They
> still mean nothing when we say that an accessible site will give a 2%
> rise in hits or a 25% rise in revenue. That cannot be argued with...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven McCaffrey [mailto:SMCCAFFR@MAIL.NYSED.GOV]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 16:27
> To: Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com; Simon White; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: statistics - for differences between accessible and
> non-acce ssible sites?
> I think there are some valid points on this thread about the potential
> misuse or misapplication of certain specific statistics, but I think
> should clarify where the problem lies.
> Borrowing the form, but not the content, of a well known phrase used
> <unnamed>,
> "Statistics don't lie, people do."
> The point is a bit more subtle in that the "lie" is usually an implied
> inference from the statistics rather than any given statistic.
> Statistics is the best tool humans have developed precisely to avoid
> deceiving ourselves which is why it is the bedrock of science.
> Not only does it allow precise quantification of the subject matter
> itself, but it also gives us a way to quantify the degree to which our
> statements may be in error.
> It is, I agree, troubling that some continue to misuse this very
> tool of thought and communication.
> Steve
> _____________________________________________________________________
> VirusChecked by the Incepta Group plc
> _____________________________________________________________________

Glasgow West End: Pat's Guide: http://www.glasgowwestend.co.uk

Guide to all that's best in Glasgow's West End: What's On, Eating Out,
Shopping, Flat Hunting, Local Characters, Classified Ads., Community
Pinboard, Art for Sale and Free Photographs to download.

ScotConnect: http://www.scotconnect.com

A smooth transition to providing accessible information on the Internet.
Quick to load, accessible Web sites - built with the minimum of fuss.

Jim and Pat Byrne
Tel: +44(0)141 334 1650
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 13:12:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:06 UTC