W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-30 counter-proposal

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:39:28 -0500
Message-ID: <4B79CD20.6060601@intertwingly.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Sam Ruby, Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:36:23 -0500:
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson, Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:54:07 +0000 (UTC):
>>>   [...]
>>>> == Rationale ==
>>>> Several studies have been performed. They have shown that:
>>>   [...]
>>>> * Most users (more than 90%) don't want the interaction model that 
>>>> longdesc="" implies. 
>>>> [http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey2/#images]
>>> You don't find basis in that survey for saying the above. And I said 
>>> in November [1] that I fail to see how that survey undermines 
>>> @longdesc.
>>> Here is why:
>> I'd like to ask that people only post if they had new information to 
>> add.
> Well, I say thank you for that characterisation of my message. On the 
> good side, I feel that I am in the same both as Ian there.

You said, and I quote: "I said in November [1] that..."

There is a *huge* difference between repeating an argument that Ian 
clearly disagrees with, and capturing an argument in a change proposal.

My focus here is to get people to stop simply repeating the same 
arguments over and over and over and and over again, and to actually 
condense and capture these arguments into a coherent change proposal.

Ian has done that, and I thanked him.

Manu's Microdata change proposal (which ultimately carried, by the way), 
contained a rebuttal section:


I simply asked you to do the same:

>> The goal here is to keep the list from being bogged down by long 
>> threads that don't seem to be producing good results.
>> My suggestion at this time is that people focus either on advocating 
>> updates to one of the existing proposals regarding issue 30:
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/longdesc
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0393.html
>> ... or stating their intent to produce another proposal.
> One of the possible outcomes that you listed in your reply to Ian's 
> counter proposal, was discussion. 
> It would certainly be new info for me if Ian told us how he links 
> WebAIMs survey to his counter proposal. To that end, I have tried to 
> show the ways that it does not support his proposal.

If you want to have a discussion, present new information.  Otherwise, 
this sounds like good stuff to either add to Chaals's proposal or to put 
into a new proposal.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 22:39:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC