Firstly, I'm suspicious of "big data" in general and any emotional interpretation of machine-driven analysis of that data. But who cares, let's look at the findings..
> 2,099,665 layout tables were detected compared to only 113,737 data tables
I'm calling bullshit.
First of all, they found 2 million tables in 1 million websites? That's ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the claim that all those 2 million tables were layout tables. Come on guys, think about it. That's not happening unless the samples included "way back machine" versions of those sites.
Find me ONE website in the list with a layout table. I challenge you. There's no way that any site in the top 1000 is going to have layout tables or "abysmal"
accessibility.
This is "million-something" clickbait. Any time someone does something involving a "million" somethings, everyone stops what they're doing and looks.
Firstly, I'm suspicious of "big data" in general and any emotional interpretation of machine-driven analysis of that data. But who cares, let's look at the findings..
> 2,099,665 layout tables were detected compared to only 113,737 data tables
I'm calling bullshit.
First of all, they found 2 million tables in 1 million websites? That's ridiculous. But not as ridiculous as the claim that all those 2 million tables were layout tables. Come on guys, think about it. That's not happening unless the samples included "way back machine" versions of those sites.
Find me ONE website in the list with a layout table. I challenge you. There's no way that any site in the top 1000 is going to have layout tables or "abysmal" accessibility.
This is "million-something" clickbait. Any time someone does something involving a "million" somethings, everyone stops what they're doing and looks.