Re: revisiting advice in HTML on tables used for layout

Hi, Jukka

I'm still not used to the terms and uses of the working groups and
maybe I'll be doing little mistakes like that often, sorry.
I understand your point and I could not agree more: there's no need to
try to write a description of the negative consequences of layout
tables and to take delicate paths to defend one point of view or the
other.
Besides, I think the text is straightforward enough as it is.

Cheers,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" 
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:47:18 +0200
Subject:Re: revisiting advice in HTML on tables used for layout

2014-01-31 15:24, contact@thecodeplayground.net [1] wrote:

  I think the normative "not recommended" is indeed more approriate. 
 As far as I can see, Steve’s intent was to add informative text
using those words, not to replace the current wording. And “not
recommended” is not normative, whereas “should not” is
normative, though in a vague way (you can always claim conformance,
with some suitable explanation).

 Nonetheless, accessibility shouldn't be pointed out as being the only
issue in using table markup for layout. Semantics,  performance and
efficiency are also points that suffer from the heavy and useless
markup of tables. All this can impact in the overall user experience
(and not only screen reader users').

 Such arguments have often been presented, almost always without
giving any factual evidence. In some discussions, more concrete
arguments might pop up, but they typically turn out to relate to
specific ways of using layout tables – and quite often, in a manner
that makes them extend to other layout tools as well. For example,
amount of code does not really depend on using layout tables but on
the way you use them. You could have absolutely minimal HTML markup
for a table and do all width, height, alignment, font, border, and
other settings in CSS.

 I’m afraid the principle “don’t use tables for layout” has
become a slogan and a meme that gets repeated, in slightly different
forms, over and over again, with some very abstract arguments given to
support it. It is often exaggerated so that even perfectly normal data
tables are explained as being layout tables, or the slogan is
simplified to “don’t use tables”.

 The current normative text says that tables should not be used as
layout aids. It’s the first sentence there. I don’t see how much
stronger you could put it, unless you want to say “shall not”. The
text is rather abstract and it exaggerates a lot, but I don’t think
it’s realistic to open the case.

 It would be a major effort to write a description of the negative
consequences of layout tables, if it would be based on facts, backed
up with references, and written in such a manner that some kind of
consensus-like acceptance could be achieved. And it would be a matter
of careful study and discussions, not just adding a few explanatory
notes. It would need to start with a definition of what “layout
table” really means – e.g., quite often even a table of controls
and labels for them is accused of being a “layout table”.  I’m
pretty sure it would be difficult to reach any consensus even on the
definition.

 So I think it would wasted effort to add informative text.

 -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ [2] 

Links:
------
[1] mailto:contact@thecodeplayground.net
[2] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/