W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Proposed change to checkpoint 5.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: thatch@us.ibm.com
cc: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904161210110.16032-100000@tux.w3.org>
I too like Chuck's wording, and feel that it more precisely captures the
really important acessibility issue. I think the religious issue of
misusing markup should be addressed by a note for this particular
checkpoint, as suggested. I actually feel that it is much more than a
simple religious issue - it is also about the ability to move into the
future in an accessible way.

As an aside, I would personally like to see a discussion of the
religi^H^H^H^H philosophy behind accessible design as an informative
appendix (and would be happy to write a rant^H^H short piece) which
included the ideas that accessible design is simply good design for a
world where innovation is the order of the day, and that accessiblity
built in from the beginning is a lot more effective than accessiblity
retro-fitted. (Trying to convert large Java applications or applets from
the AWT model to the more accessible swing classes is a good way to
discover this, but there are many others.)

Charles McCN

On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  I object to 5.3 (didn't think I was religious), I like your wording, Chuck.
  
  "If tables are used for layout (i.e you cannot yet achieve the same design
  using style sheets - see Guideline/checkpoint whatever) then design all
  layout tables so that the content is presented logically when the table is
  linearized."
  
  Jim Thatcher
  IBM Special Needs Systems
  www.ibm.com/sns
  thatch@us.ibm.com
  (512)838-0432
  
  
  
  Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com> on 04/15/99 10:16:17 AM
  
  To:   Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
  cc:   w3c-wai-gl@w3.org (bcc: James Thatcher/Austin/IBM)
  Subject:  Re: Proposed change to checkpoint 5.3
  
  
  
  
  
  Checkpoint 5.3 is like the world's religions... everybody's view is the
  correct view.  I must consider myself an agnostic, sitting on the fence.  I
  think Ian is very close with his proposal. I agree with Eric's sentiment,
  but not strongly enough to have 5.3 removed entirely.  I agree with Jason's
  sentiment, but not strongly enough to enjoin people from using tables for
  layout in all cases.
  
  So, here is my two cents on rewording:
  
  "If tables are used for layout (i.e you cannot yet achieve the same design
  using style sheets - see Guideline/checkpoint whatever) then design all
  layout tables so that the content is presented logically when the table is
  linearized."
       Priority 1.
  
  And by all means, add a note as per Jason's and Eric's comments: "using
  tables for layout is wrong, and here's why... "
  
  Perhaps Checkpoint 10.3, which as Eric points out is similar in intent,
  could be combined with a reworded 5.3.  However, I think the caution or
  reminder of the difficulties caused by tables used for layout (as distinct
  from the specific case of columns of text) should remain in the
  checkpoints.
  
  At 13/04/99 10:54 PM , you wrote:
  >Hello,
  >
  >In the Proposed Recommendation, checkpoint 5.3
  >(priority 2) reads "Avoid using tables for layout."
  >
  >During the teleconference today, we discussed this
  >enigmatic checkpoint and its priority. The discussion
  >began as I recounted how, when analyzing the accessibility
  >of the W3C home page, I (and some other W3C Team members)
  >felt as though the page was still accessible despite featuring
  >a layout table. The W3C home page is designed so that it
  >still makes sense when table markup is ignored (e.g., by Lynx).
  >
  >Checkpoint 5.3 as written today means that if you use
  >any table for layout, your page or site cannot conform
  >to the Double-A level. And yet, the W3C home page does
  >not seem like it poses significant barriers to accessibility.
  >
  >I would like to propose the following rewrite of the checkpoint:
  >
  >5.3: Design all layout tables so that the content
  >     is presented logically when the table is linearized.
  >     Priority 1.
  >
  >This checkpoint then resembles checkpoint 6.1, which reads:
  >
  >     6.1 Organize content logically using appropriate
  >         structural markup so the organization remains clear
  >         even when associated style sheets are turned off
  >         or are not supported.
  >
  >Linearization will be discussed in the techniques.
  >
  >Some will argue that using a table for layout is a misuse
  >of markup and I agree with them. We must emphasize style sheets
  >as the right way to lay out pages. This proposal will not
  >please purists, who have strong arguments for ensuring
  >that tables be used only for tabular data. Jason White has
  >successfully argued that BLOCKQUOTE not be used to
  >indent text as this misuse confuses some tools. The same
  >reasoning could be applied in this case, and that would be
  >a strong argument for keeping the current checkpoint
  >wording.
  >
  >However, if there are ways to use tables that
  >"transform gracefully" (and that obey other checkpoints)
  >AND if readily available technologies can linearize those tables
  >(as Lynx does), then please consider this proposal.
  >
  >Thank you,
  >
  > - Ian
  >
  >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990324
  >--
  >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)
  >Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814
  >http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
  >
  
  ----
  Starling Access Services
   "Access A World Of Possibility"
    e-mail: info@starlingweb.com
     URL: http://www.starlingweb.com
      Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983
  
  
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 16 April 1999 12:16:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT