W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: proposed clarification of TABLE caption, title, and summary for the techniques document

From: Robert Neff <robneff@home.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:28:07 -0500
Message-ID: <001601bf6a6d$71a0b400$cef80d18@alex1.va.home.com>
To: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <W3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 i concur with phil.  i had used the title early on and it wrecked havoc on
pwWebSPeak and other tools as I would get the alt and title spoken so it
provided  redundant words. I also would be concerned that this would
convolute implementation.

i have not used title since and have avoided it.  unless i am missing the
point, i do not see any value added.  what does title bring to the table?

rob

----- Original Message -----
From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
To: <W3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: proposed clarification of TABLE caption, title, and summary for
the techniques document


>
>
>
> >Provide a few word description of the table with the "title" attribute.
>
> PJ: I don't agree with also adding a "title" attribute, it is too
redundant
> and there are no examples of why it would be needed.  We are asking the
> author, tools, and browser to do too much and loose them in the process.
> Even if a browser rendered the "title" attribute, what would it add as far
> as accessibility in addition to the surrounding text, caption, summary,
and
> table itself? "Title" attribute was not in the original techniques [1],
why
> add it now?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS-19990505/#tables
>
>
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
>
>
Received on Saturday, 29 January 2000 10:38:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT