If you are running a business in the field of metal products, you will definitely want to deal with plating process as well. Well, for such matter, you need to have the plating equipment. There are at least two benefits that you can get if you are deal…

the itemscope is utterly pointless. The scope of the property is /always/ the scope of the tag to which it is applied. Making this extremely verbose and rather confusing.

Consider if you got rid of itemscope and just had itemtype instead – what would you do in an XML serialisation? You’d need to do itemtype=”itemtype”, then the specification would need to use that as a reserved value, which would start to get messy.

Which parts of the raw data prevent it being published?

Excellent to hear that decisions are evidence-based, but without publishing the data it can’t be reviewed & debated.

I know it’s not your intention, but the whole…
“Evidence proves I’m right!”
“Can I see this evidence?”
“No, it’s secret”
…thing is the folly of quacks

http://www.w3.org/community/data-driven-standards/2011/11/07/launch/

I agree with Karl about the methodological concerns here. 7 is a pretty small sample. More to the point, AFAICT this is a test of “can n00bs learn a thing this way” vs. “what works best over long-term use” seems to be something not studied by this survey. A study like this could be constructed using new forms of elements the participants already know that are designed to be “clearer” in this way (e.g., an output type=”video” vs. the video tag).

*Perhaps* we can eventually say that what’s good for new users is good for the experienced as well, but this research doesn’t seem to explore that, even in the small population. But it’s good to know what’s good for new users too.

Regards

Like the poster, I had a wtf moment reading about itemscope, and found the hixie study while looking for what could possibly be the reason for choosing this syntax.

Unfortunately the raw data can’t be published for privacy reasons.

I was really surprised by the itemscope/itemtype thing helping people, but it was a really stark result if I recall correctly. Originally I’d designed it with just one attribute “item”, whose value was optional but if present was the type. Confusion abounded in the usability lab when we tested that variant. We had a variant with the attributes split more or less like it is now, and the participants in the study were far more comfortable with that. One of the people who was tested on my original design saw the split variant near the end of their session, and it was like they had an epiphany.

It was quite an educational experience for me as a language designer. Things that I thought were obvious (URLs are too long and unwieldy to be used everywhere, terse markup is better than verbose redundant markup) were repeatedly shown to be false. It really changed how I design languages.

HTH.