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

Re: Caption@title instead of table@summary?

From: Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:21:31 -0800
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <r263ps-1056i-A0300E9760794733A8F9D6000129BACC@MBP.local>
On 2009-02-18 Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:

>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.

Indeed, let me provide a real world example:

<http://www.bookshare.org/search?resultsView=TABLE&search=Search&keyword=king>

We implemented sortable headings for these search results 
tables. A sighted user gets visual cues about the sorting via 
the heading colors and sort direction icon. We felt like this 
was important information to all users and chose to expose that 
through @summary:

summary="Search results sorted by title, ascending"

Caption@title does not provide the same flexibility in authoring 
that having both Caption and Summary available does. The 
exclusion of @summary would be a big loss IMHO.

-Steve

-- 
Steve Axthelm
steveax@pobox.com
Received on Friday, 20 February 2009 20:22:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:32 GMT