Re: Selector Syntax Survey - subject indicator vs :has()

On Feb 12, 2014 11:54 AM, "Daniel Glazman" <
daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2014 17:49, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> We know exactly how many people voted before the change (130) and will
>> keep that in mind when evaluating the results.
>>
>> (The results are sorted by time, so we know *which* votes were cast
>> before the change as well.)
>
>
> I am saying asking between ! and :has() on one hand and ^ and :has() on
> the other is *NOT* the same question because of the negative (pun
> intended) aspect of !. I disagree you can infer any sort of result from
> the poll since 130 answers will be biaised.
>
> </Daniel>
>

I am not going to argue for or against any kind of statistical analysis
here, but simply to point out that the real heat of the topic as discussed
in the minutes[1] can be boiled down to WG member's differing read of what
authors would find intuitive or confusing.  Some held that CSS authors
"have no problem with ! and negation" others held exactly the opposite and
both gave anecdotal evidence, which of course also lacks context of how it
was presented.  We asked a question, we see how it was presented and of a
sample of 130 responses we see an overwhelming number of comments to one
side.

Regardless of statistical trueness or bias of the samplr, i think it is
fair to say that we have clear evidence that -some- (seemingly non-trivial)
number of authors are indeed confused by !/not.  My appeal here is simply
that priority of constituencies should lean us away from things which will
confuse at least a portion of authors unless a very solid rationale is
provided for why that is fundamentally necessary.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jan/0334.html

This said, I'm not opposed to any means of getting better information about
authors, in fact I think it's necessary to do more of this (maybe we can
establish an acceptable means first) to further improve the feedback loop
between constituents and the WG.