[text] table summary change propsal comments (was [text] Request to re-open ISSUE 32)

Hi Josh,

Thanks for your work on drafting a Change Proposal to reinstate the
table summary attribute. [1]

You wrote:

> The table summary decision by the HTML WG chairs gives three
> examples of new information that would be acceptable in re-opening ISSUE
> 32.[1]
>
> They were:
> 1) identification of specific use cases
> 2) first hand statements from authors of development tools, and
> 3) identification of specific operational problems with aria-describedby.

The full quote [1] of the three bullet points is:

"* Identification of specific use cases, along with a number of
specific examples from real-world sites, where a separate table
summary would be useful either instead of or in addition to a caption
element or an aria-describedby attribute. Ideally such use cases would
explain why this is needed only for tables but not also for images or
canvas elements which could express the same information using a
different mechanism.

* First hand statements from authors of development tools currently
implementing the summary attribute that the making the summary
attribute obsolete would present an unacceptable burden or that it
would significantly inhibit the adoption of HTML5 by the tools that
they produce.

* Identification of specific operational problems with the
aria-describedby attribute that make it not able to be
programmatically determined or suitable for use as a table summary."

These points are decisive factors that will determine if issue 32 is
reopened and how it will be judged.

So consider reorganizing the Rationale section of the change proposal
to specifically address those three bullets. To this end think about
adding:

* A "Use Cases" sub-section like we discussed off-list.
* An "Authors of Development Tools" sub-section.
* An "aria-describedby" sub-section.

These could all probably be <h3>s under Rationale.

In addition, one <h3> subsection or a couple of them (more on this
below) for the rationale material that is currently in the proposal
would be beneficial.

If the document gets too lengthy with the added material consider
making sub-pages for each section like we did for the longdesc CP.

Anyway here are some further comments.

RATIONALE SECTION:

"Rational" is misspelled. It should be "Rationale".

For this part:
"In section 4.9.1 the spec states:

"If a table element has a summary attribute, and the user agent has
not classified the table as a layout table, the user agent may report
the contents of that attribute to the user.

The link that describes @summary then advises the author to use one of
the 'techniques for describing tables' instead. This advice is
contradictory. Our preference is that @summary is retained as a fully
conforming attribute."

Consider:
* Using a <h3>Contradictory Advice</h3> to introduce the section for
better readability.
* Striking the sentence "Our preference is that @summary is retained
as a fully conforming attribute." Preferences do not matter in the
Decision Policy. Strong arguments do.
* Stating what the consequences are of giving contradictory advice.

For the rest of the Rationale section from "There are also some
problems with the..." to the end of that section consider:

* Using a <h3>Impact on Current and Legacy User Agents</h3> or
something like it to introduce the section.
* Structuring the remainder of the existing rationale section to be
less of a review of the current spec text and more of a WHY specific
alternatives are not suitable replacements for @summary. Maybe have
specific sections for:
  <h4>details</h4>
  <h4>figcaption</h4>

This would help readability and let people know what the main reasons
are for reinstating @summary.

> Vlad Alexander is an author of a development tool who provides a useful
> example of how @summary is still a valid attribute.

Vlad does indeed provide significant new evidence and information that
addresses the second and third points of the HTML Chairs' initial
decision.

So consider:

*Adding a <h3>Authors of Development Tools</h3> directly to the change
proposal and labeling it "New Information".
*Adding a  <h3>aria-describedby</h3> directly to the change proposal
and labeling it "New Information".

Vlad can be quoted directly for both of those sections.

In regard to the aria-describedby section a while back Gez mentioned
good rationale. He said that using ARIA as a workaround for a table
summary would be way too cumbersome for authors. No one would want the
text on the screen, as it would state what is visually evident. So to
use ARIA, a person would have to write the content, hide it with CSS,
an then reference the hidden text with aria-labelledby. That's so
cumbersome that surely even the most enthusiastic ARIA supporter
should realize that the summary attribute is far more efficient and
already well-supported.

SUMMARY SECTION:

The following statement is inaccurate, Josh:

"@summary has been rejected by the HTML 5 working group as it is
'hidden meta data' or simply prone to misuse (the two main arguments
for its current status) as well as actively harming accessibility
because it is not available to all users"

Under "hidden metadata" the Chairs' decision says "Either way, neither
of these observations were decisive." Hidden meta data was not one of
the main reasons for the chairs rejecting table summary. So consider
striking that from the summary section. If you want to talk about
metadata consider adding a "Responses to Arguments Against Retaining
@summary" section (more on that below).

I suggest addressing points in the Chairs' @summary decision and not
the general @summary Wiki page.  Having your [3] reference link on the
page confuses. Remove it to provide better focus.

The statement, "summary's current status as obsolete but conforming"
is incorrect. @summary now is *completely obsolete*.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/obsolete.html#attr-table-summary
So correct that statement throughout the document. It seems to be
mentioned three times.

DETAILS SECTION:

The details section lacks details <smile>. You might want to take a
look at the other two previous proposals for ideas.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Summary_Change_Proposal_Nov_18%2C_2009#Details
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/SummaryAttribute20100222#Details

IMPACT SECTION:

The impact section heading is missing.

NEGATIVE EFFECTS SECTION:

As these are actually rebuttals, consider moving them to a new
<h3>Responses to Arguments Against Retaining @summary</h3> section.

State in the negative effects section what you believe are any real
negative effects of reinstating @summary.

Hope some of this helps.

Best Regards,
Laura
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html
-- 
Laura L. Carlson


On 7/12/11, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
> I formally request to reopen ISSUE 32 - table @summary.
>
> The table summary decision by the HTML WG chairs gives three
> examples of new information that would be acceptable in re-opening ISSUE
> 32.[1]
>
> They were:
> 1) identification of specific use cases
> 2) first hand statements from authors of development tools, and
> 3) identification of specific operational problems with aria-describedby.
>
> Vlad Alexander is an author of a development tool who provides a useful
> example of how @summary is still a valid attribute. [2]
>
> My CP also highlights how the current spec examples ( in 4.9.1.1
> Techniques for describing tables) are not only not backwards compatible
> with legacy Assistive Technologies but do not even demonstrate the same
> user experience that is possible with @summary using current 'state of
> the art' Assistive Technologies (such as JAWS 12, and VoiceOver). [3]
>
> I trust that the combination of this statement by an established
> development tool author, as well as the observations outlined in my CP
> are sufficient new information which will suffice to help to reopen the
> issue. [4]
>
> Sincerely
>
> Joshue O Connor
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0092.html
> [2] http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/aria-for-content-doomed/
> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/tabular-data.html#table-descriptions-techniques
> [4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Category:Table_Summary
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 14 July 2011 20:52:08 UTC