- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Simon Pieters<simonp@opera.com> wrote: > I looked through the list, and found just *one* that is somewhat of that > kind (and is not a layout table), which is: > > "A table with two columns listing title, author, date, source, subject > headings and comments for selected newspaper articles" > http://www.santacruzpl.org/history/clippingfile/cliplist.php?page=3&subjhead2=621&newspaper=&datelimit= > > Although the table seems simple enough to not actually need the summary. The > table can even be linearized without information loss. I guess what I'm trying to understand from the people that are advocating for @summary is: 1. Do you think that @summary, as it has been used over the past 10 years, actually has increased the accessibility for any group of people on the web? And I don't mean that it could if used correctly (next question is about that), but in the actual usage it has seen in the past, has helped with accessibility? 2. If it hasn't been increasing accessibility in the past (say for example due to incorrect usage), is there a reason to believe it will be in the future. I.e. do we believe that increased advocacy, or better tools, or changes to the spec regarding aspects of @summary, will cause it to improve accessibility more than it has in the past? / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:46:11 UTC