- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:57:22 +0200
- 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