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

Re: Issues of @summary and use of data for "decisions"

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:02:41 +0200
To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uvzzirtridj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:58:56 +0200, Shelley Powers  
<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If an author is reluctant to include the summary visually, but still  
>> wants
>> to provide a summary for non-visual users, then it can be hidden with  
>> CSS.
>>
>>
>
> But the summary is part of caption -- what if the author wants both? A
> caption for all people, and a table summary for the visually impaired?

    <caption>Caption. <span class=summary>Summary.</span></caption>

    caption .summary { display:block; height:0; overflow:hidden }


>>> (For more info see sighted
>>> use case).
>>>
>>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-50bd1f9b6606cd0d63fc7e525c1db226aac36d9b
>>>
>>> Most of the debate around providing a summary mechanism has been about
>>> misunderstanding its purpose, so trying to merge its purpose with
>>> another element's purpose may be problematic leading to more
>>> confusion.
>>
>> I would argue the opposite: if authors don't know when to use  
>> summary="" and
>> when to use <caption>, removing the choice should result in less  
>> confusion.
>> (cf. <acronym>.)
>>
>
> Oh, I see. Smooshing the two together will generate a miraculous  
> epiphany.
>
> Do you have data to back up your hypothesis?

No. Do you?

Thinking about it, I've seen people cheer about <acronym> and <abbr> being  
merged into one, e.g.:

http://xhtml.com/en/future/x-html-5-versus-xhtml-2/#x2-cool-acronym-gone
http://robertnyman.com/2007/02/05/html-5-or-xhtml-2/


>>> Related ref:
>>> short and long text alternatives.
>>> * These are different concepts with different uses and both should be
>>> provided as separate functions. Short descriptions are read
>>> automatically when the item is encountered. Long descriptions are read
>>> only on user request.
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
>>
>> Are you saying that <caption> is read automatically, and summary="" is  
>> read
>> only on user request?
>>
>> If it is important to have something short be read automatically, maybe  
>> the
>> user agent could read the first sentence in the <caption>  
>> automatically, and
>> the rest on user request?
>>
>
> What?
>
> I...uh..
>
> what?

Hmm. Let's take a step back.

>>> Related ref:
>>> short and long text alternatives.

It was argued that captions are short, and summaries long. Correct?

>>> * These are different concepts with different uses and both should be
>>> provided as separate functions. Short descriptions are read
>>> automatically when the item is encountered. Long descriptions are read
>>> only on user request.

If caption is the short description, and summary the long description,  
then with the proposal in HTML5 to use <caption> for both, the short  
description can be the first sentence in <caption>, and the long  
description the rest of the <caption>.

Let's take an example.

    <caption><strong>Results.</strong> Of 19 browsers, 9 passed 001.htm, all
    passed 002.htm, 3 passed 003.xht and 004.xht, and all but one passed
    005.foo.</caption>

The short description (caption) is "Results.", and the long description  
(summary) is "Of 19 browsers, 9 passed 001.htm, all passed 002.htm, 3  
passed 003.xht and 004.xht, and all but one passed 005.foo."

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 22:03:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:38 GMT