Hi Daniel, On Monday, July 29, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Daniel Buchner wrote:
> FWIW, I ran a dev poll last week: ~95% of respondents What was the sample size? Who were the developers? Where was the poll run? > preferred a simple, separate HTML document specifically for their widget and > use all the existing DOM APIs and modules from across the web for things like > storage, localization, etc. In fact, of the only 2 respondents opposed to the > idea, one fundamentally misunderstood the widget concept and the other > accidentally selected the wrong option. Here are some of their qualitative > responses: How did you select the sample of responses you sent us? Can I have access to the complete questionnaire? I need to check the validity and reliability of the questions as well as the overall design of the poll - as the ordering of the questions can influence answers as well as how the questions are phrased, etc. If it's a non-probabilistic sample (as it appears to be), we can't conclude anything definitive from it because it's not representative - though it can be indicative of something descriptively, but not inferentially. > Given the miniscule level of adoption/use of the current widget scheme, and > the fact the proposed addition of a lighter declaration via the app manifest > wouldn't affect use of the old spec, I'm having trouble understanding why > this proposal is facing such stop energy. Please don't confuse questions for "stop energy" - the costs of standardization (social/monetary) is extremely high - specially so if we don't do it right, so there will be a lot of scrutiny on anything being proposed.
