W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Caption@title instead of table@summary?

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:39:53 +0000
Message-ID: <499BF389.60306@cfit.ie>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Interesting idea. I think the core tradeoff between <caption title="">
> and <table summary=""> is whether the additional information is
> accessible (in some way) to sighted users. 

No its not. The difference is between some thing that facilitates
comprehension for a user that /needs/ this information and something
that is optional for a user who can already comprenend it. For example,
a sighted user can quickly glance at a table and understand the
relationships between various headers and row and column relationships.
A non sighted user, has to interogate the table. @summary is useful as
it does some of this work for the user because the user is informed in
advance of what the table contains. It could be compared to a look ahead.

>One reason we have both
> title="" and alt="" on <img> is specifically to discourage UAs from
> displaying alt to sighted users, since then it tends to contain
> auxiliary information instead of replacement text. On the other hand, a
> table summary should actually be auxiliary information about the table -
> it doesn't need to fully replace the table because the table is still
> there to be navigated if the user desires.

Yes.
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:40:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:31 GMT