Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Shelley Powers wrote:
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Shelley Powers
<[email protected]> wrote:
Now, those disclaimers were very well done. Notice the items
marked **. The
survey editors specifically warned against using the results to
form a
conclusion.
No they did not. They said that "care should be taken" in
interpreting the results.
Actually, I would say that means a person should use caution before
forming a conclusion, and making the attribute obsolete. But we can
disagree on what it means.
Note as well, of course, that this disclaimer applies to a study that
was not done by Ian, and which provides the totals for each answer
inline in the study (I'm not sure if the actual raw data is
available).
Finally, the relevant part of the survey (the question concerning
preferred treatment of a complex image) was very clear - the current
longdesc behavior was *extremely* unpopular compared to the other
proposed methods (all of which used existing technologies). The only
less popular treatment of the image was ignoring it altogether.
Again, though, there could be other factors. I'm not necessarily
defending longdesc, I leave that to the accessibility folks. The
point on my original email was to question the soundness of the
studies that Ian's using as his primary proof for the
counter-proposal.
I have a degree in Psychology (industrial emphasis), in addition
to a degree
in computer science, and most of my time spent within the
discipline was
focused on testing, research, and how to conduct these types of
studies. I'm
not an expert, I only have a BA not an advanced degree, but the
points I
made are a fundamental, and not something I'm making up.
If your expertise is relevant, then you can articulate your problems
with the studies used more precisely, as Maciej requested.
Vaguely-stated but impressive-sounding objections are not just
useless, but *actively harmful* to the discussion (see "Gish
Gallop").
Actually, I was precise. Did you need some kind of number to make
it seem more precise? Do I need to say, "I'm 99.453% sure that Ian
has not provided access to the raw Google index data"? Or something
like that? Your comment is confusing.
As for the statement about my objection being harmful to the
discussion, and casting a negative connotation about my concerns
("Gish Gallop") is a very personal, and negative, statement to make
about my objection, Tab. Could you please justify how my objection
is "actively harmful"?
Is "harmful" in this context, the same use of "harmful" that has
been used about longdesc and @summary? I'm trying to figure it out,
because I can't see how my objections are harmful, at least not
with my understanding of the word.
How about the two of you figure this out off-list, and then report
back?
I'd like to keep public-html for technical discussions.
- Sam Ruby
Sam,
I will be glad to have these discussions off list. Or frankly, not
have these discussions at all. My initial email response to Ian was
valid, and on topic. The WhatWG tag team response, less so. I have no
problems with people questioning the statements I made, but the
pushback was focused on my intentions, rather than on my statements.
I am concerned though that too often the co-chairs are undermining my
integrity, authority, and usefulness, by following a pattern of
allowing several emails accusing me of negative behavior, personal
attacks, or in this case, causing harm to the discussion, and then,
when I defend myself, then, and only then, do the co-chairs, such as
yourself, step in to shut the discussion down.
There is a substantial difference between "shut down" and "not here".
The number of posts on a Valentines day Sunday is remarkably high:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/index.html
Yes, I should not respond when I receive a direct comment in the list.
After all, better seen than heard...
My focus on the publishing discussion is to get people to report bugs,
and to make use of the facilities we already have:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0411.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Feb/0421.html
Discussions around bugs 8818 and 8252 are largely technical
discussions about the bugs themselves.
In my opinion, the issue 30 discussion was not focused on either
updating the existing change proposals or the creation of a new change
proposal.
I no longer know how to participate in the group. I cannot
participate in the group if the co-chairs continue in their uneven
stewardship of the group.
So, for now, I would like to reserve public-html for discussions of
the form of "hey Charles (or Ian): can you update your change proposal
to include 'x'" or "hey Chairs: I'm not happy with either change
proposal, and I would like to produce a third one, can I have n days
in order to prepare it?"
This is counter to your Decision process, which includes a time of
discussion about the proposals. And I don't remember that the discussion
had to take this specific format.
Are you co-chairs changing the Decision process? Again?
This is fine, if you apply the same practices for ALL discussions, and
for all participants.
Other discussions can (and should) proceed. Just elsewhere, with
results brought back to the larger group.
This is not how other discussions have gone. But how things are handled
does seem to change, depending on the players.
- Sam Ruby
Shelley
