W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

Re: PF Response: @Summary

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:57:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4A28FA12.4010200@malform.no>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, wai-liaison@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Henri Sivonen On 09-06-05 10.27:
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 03:05, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> But I will note that I also pointed out the need to gather data. It's
>> easy to have an opinion, but we won't know whose opinion is right
>> until we get some data.
>> @summary has been specified for over 10 years, so there should be
>> plenty of data out there to show if it has been a good idea or not.
>> Wouldn't you agree?
> I think the best data collection suggestion so far was made by Philip 
> Taylor on IRC yesterday:
> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604#l-1058
> Of course, it wouldn't help unless people agree on a cut-off point. E.g. 
> whether a feature is a failure if the revealed preference of 80% of the 
> sample of the constituency is to route around the feature? 50%, 90%, 99%?

Ian does not propose to /remove/ the table summary feature. 
Instead, his draft proposes to force the summary feature upon all 
users, and in a such way that it becomes impossible to distinguish 
the summary from the caption.

Thus those numbers would not help us.

 From the IRC logs[1]

# [21:37] <shelleyp> Yes, but interpretation of whether a problem 
is "solved" are frequently based on biased, subjective viewpoints
# [21:38] <Hixie> shelleyp: if so, then your problem description 
is far too vague

[1] http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090604
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 10:58:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:33 UTC