W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Table accessibility (was Re: headers attribute)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:51:39 -0700
Message-Id: <5F835246-2971-494B-BDEE-FDC7E453E45E@apple.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>


On Jun 3, 2007, at 1:00 AM, aurélien levy wrote:

>
> After a good sleep i think the test case need more case to be fully  
> revelent so here is what is propose :
>
> - table without summary, th, scope or headers/id
> - table with just empty summary
> - table with just summary
> - table with just scope
> - table with just headers/id
> - table with summary and th, scope or headers/id
> - table with summary, th, and scope with just vertical reading
> - table with summary, th, and scope with just horizontal reading
> - table with summary, th, and scope with just horizontal reading
> - table with summary, th, and scope with both reading order
> - table with summary, th, and headers/id with just vertical reading
> - table with summary, th, and headers/id with just horizontal reading
> - table with summary, th, and headers/id with just horizontal reading
> - table with summary, th, and headers/id with both reading order
> - table with summary, th, headers/id and scope with both reading order
>
> I will make it live as soon as i can but maybe not today because  
> it's mother's day in France ;)

You seem to have some repeats there. Other good test cases might be  
checking what happens with some of the more common headers errors:

- headers lists an ID which is not in the document
- headers lists an ID which is in the document, but does not point to  
a table header
- headers lists an ID which is in the document, and points to a table  
header, but not in the same table


>
> Aurélien
>>
>> With further research, I found more info about commonly used  
>> screen readers, added here: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ 
>> TableAccessibility
>>
>> It sounds like to do effective screen reader compatibility testing  
>> we'd need to check multiple versions of JAWS for Windows, HAL, and  
>> Windows-Eyes, and at least the latest version of VoiceOver.  
>> VoiceOver is free with the operating system, but the others are  
>> all very expensive so it may be difficult to get adequate testing.
>>
>> I'm not sure what other screen readers are used widely enough to  
>> need testing.
>>
>> Overall, it seems that testing support level of various HTML  
>> features in screen readers will be much more difficult than  
>> testing in standard desktop browsers or even in mobile browsers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 June 2007 21:52:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:00 GMT