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

RE: linearized tables

From: Greg Lowney <greglo@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:45:55 -0800
Message-ID: <783D93998201D311B0CF00805FEAA07B0D28F423@RED-MSG-42>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: kasday@acm.org
Hi Len, I don't necessarily disagree that it should be priority 1 to make
tables understandable when linearized, but I don't like the example: "a form
laid out in a table with field labels on the top row and corresponding
fields on the bottom row."

I believe that complies with the guideline that requires the table to make
sense when linearized. It is normal table behavior for the first row to
label the entire columns, so from the standpoint of the guideline regarding
linearization it should be OK to create a table whose first row contained
labels for the form controls in lower rows. The responsibility then is on
the agent doing the linearization to clearly express the labeling
relationship between the column header and the cell contents. That's equally
true whether the cell contains a control or any other content. Therefore I
don't see the example as violating this guideline.

However, the example would violate a second guideline, which is to ensure
that implicitly-associated labels are properly positioned. That is Pri 2
because it's assumed that the author will comply with the third guideline,
that of providing explicitly-associated labels. 

	Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 12:08 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: kasday@acm.org
Subject: Fwd: linearized tables



>Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:39:32 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: kasday@pop3.concentric.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:41:49 -0500
>To: "wai-wcag-editor@w3.org" <wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>
>From: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
>Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>Subject: linearized tables
>Resent-From: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> archive/latest/1144
>X-Loop: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>
>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
>
>-------
>Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
>Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
>Department of Electrical Engineering
>Temple University
>423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
>kasday@acm.org
>http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday
>
>(215) 204-2247 (voice)
>(800) 750-7428 (TTY)

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 12:47:14 GMT

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