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

Re: Fwd: linearized tables

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:23:30 -0500 (EST)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003111221300.2915-100000@tux.w3.org>
No it doesn't. If the linearised version does not make sense then the table
does not pass the checkpoint. The example you cite is a classic case of a
linearised version that does not make sense. (Although "linearised" is a
fairly woolly term...)

Charles McCN

On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  >
  >WCAG says
  >
  >5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when 
  >linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an 
  >alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2]
  >
  >This means that someone could use tables for layout in way that the page 
  >makes no sense and is not usable by any of todays user agents... but still 
  >get an A conformance rating, because this is only priority 2.
  >
  >For example, if there's a form laid out in a table with field labels on 
  >the top row and corresponding fields on the bottom row.
  >
  >I think the checkpoint needs to be Priority 1.
  >
  >Len
Received on Saturday, 11 March 2000 12:23:30 GMT

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