(sorry, send it too soon, re-sending)
>What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If >you agree with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to also find such categorical exclusions >concerning. Dan has mentioned a possible workarround which would be the obvious long standing practice of "do not pay attention what IE10 is saying" but Aaron please note that client side EL -as it is right now- excludes ALL browsers with faulty or non javascript support plus everyone with javascript turned of. This is certainly a "categorical exclusion" and one we know is present in our dataset from the very beginning. I can run the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if this % of users with no js-support is higher than the total of % IE10 users put together. More so with increasing mobile traffic. Now, it's a small number for sure, so as Leila mentions we can find the answer to many questions with out actually pooling every single user. However I do not think this caveats are a problem, as they are know. We know, for example, that EL might not be that useful when trying to see in detail behavior of users that use, say, "opera mini" (made up example) On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Nuria Ruiz <[email protected]> wrote: > >What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users > would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If >you agree > with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to > also find such categorical exclusions >concerning. > Dan has mentioned a possible workarround which would be the obvious long > standing practice of "do not pay attention what IE10 is saying" but Aaron > please note that client side EL -as it is right now- excludes ALL browsers > with faulty or non javascript support plus everyone with javascript turned > of. This is certainly a "categorical exclusion" and one we know is present > in our dataset from the very beginning. I can run the numbers but I > wouldn't be surprised if this % of users is higher than the total of % IE10 > users put together. However, I do not think is a problem we know data > comes with this caveats and we know for example that EL might not be that > useful when trying to see in detail behavior of users that use opera mini, > say. (made up example) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Ah. I think I see the confusion. When I referred to knowing whether the >> software "works" for a group of users or not, I'm talking about something >> more than technical requirements. Even software that is technically >> functioning can fail to serve its intended purpose. The work we do with >> field studies surfaces this. That's the point I was trying to make with >> the anon example. >> >> What I find concerning is the idea that a biased subset of our users >> would be categorically ignored for this type of evaluation. If you agree >> with me that such evaluation is valuable to our users, I think you ought to >> also find such categorical exclusions concerning. >> On Jan 15, 2015 6:38 PM, "Aaron Halfaker" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Christian, I appreciate your response, but if you only say how I >>> misunderstood you without suggestion how I might have understood you >>> better, I don't see a way to continue the conversation. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Christian Aistleitner < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Aaron, >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 09:23:13AM -0600, Aaron Halfaker wrote: >>>> > You hold >>>> > a minority opinion that testing software in the field is unnecessary. >>>> >>>> Hey, that's not what I've said :-) >>>> >>>> And this mis-interpretation of my previous email pretty much makes the >>>> rest of your argument moot from my point of view. >>>> >>>> > We're merely disagreeing about whether it is >>>> > good to assume that DNT means [...] >>>> >>>> And I respect that we have different opinions about DNT. >>>> No doubt there. >>>> >>>> > However, when you say that my work has no value, [...] >>>> >>>> ??? >>>> Again ... I think you're misreading my email. >>>> I never said that your work has no value. >>>> >>>> >>>> Have fun, >>>> Christian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---- quelltextlich e.U. ---- \\ ---- Christian Aistleitner ---- >>>> Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz >>>> Christian Aistleitner >>>> Kefermarkterstrasze 6a/3 Email: [email protected] >>>> 4293 Gutau, Austria Phone: +43 7946 / 20 5 81 >>>> Fax: +43 7946 / 20 5 81 >>>> Homepage: http://quelltextlich.at/ >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Analytics mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Analytics mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
