- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 09:35:03 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 06/05/2010 01:21, Ian Hickson wrote: > I object on the grounds that there's no evidence that there are authors > who: > > * have tables complicated enough that non-visual users need a > description, and > > * are able to write a description, and > > * are not willing to expose this description to all users, and > > * are not willing to use CSS techniques or<details> to hide the > information from the default visual presentation, and > > * will remember to update the attribute when the table changes. > > There is, however, ample evidence that authors who are convinced (by > advocacy) that they fall into the above situation in fact fail to fall > into it, and end up creating harmful content. There is also ample evidence > that having the attribute present encourages authors to include > descriptions when they are not necessary, wasting their time and the time > of their AT-using readers. > > Therefore, having the attribute causes more harm than not having it. Aside from any technical discussion on the pros and cons of the CFC for Issue 32, firstly I disagree with your points - A to E - and as for the last piece of prose, I am sorry, that is just plain doublespeak. [1] Josh [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 08:35:32 UTC