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

Re: summary="" in HTML5 ISSUE-32

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:00:13 -0800
Cc: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Steve Axthelm <steveax@pobox.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org, janina@rednote.net, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-id: <A6A22DF8-7D45-48AD-98DE-F407D6A5BF70@apple.com>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie

On Feb 26, 2009, at 3:42 AM, Joshue O Connor wrote:

>> Category C
>> especially seems to me like something it would be wrong to put in
>> summary - if the information truly can't be found anywhere else,  
>> then it
>> seems to violate the ideas of equivalent content and universal  
>> access to
>> hide it from sighted users.
> No, I disagree. Why? Because the @summary is /providing/ equivalence
> through a textual description giving an overview or useful guidance to
> the user. A sighted user by looking at the content can /usually/
> understand the purpose of the table (issues with cognition and
> comprehension aside for the moment) and content relationships - all  
> this
> takes is a glance over the content. So @summary is providing the  
> glance
> as such that the sighted person /already/ has. So there is no way the
> use of @summary is discriminating against sighted users as it is
> providing equivalence for those who cannot see.

Category C was specifically about information that can *not* be  
learned by looking at the table, or anywhere else; it is found only in  
summary. That was my definition of Category C, which you said could be  
put in summary. Quoting from earlier emails:

>> C) Additional information not found in the table at all, but  
>> relating to
>> its contents.
> @summary could do this.

This was in contrast to categories A and B, which were descriptions of  
the table's structure to aid navigation, and summaries of the table's  
conclusions, so C is explicitly not either of those.

So if such information is put in summary, it would not be equivalent.  
It would be providing information to non-visual users that cannot be  
learned from seeing the table. It seems that summary is used at least  
sometimes to convey such information. Would you agree that summary  
providing additional information (not information about table  
structure, or a summary of the table's conclusions, but brand new info  
that is not in the table at all) violates equivalence?

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 19:01:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC