RE: Table Techniques - Summary

I agree that null summary (summary="") should be allowed for layout
tables.  As Matt points out, this indicates a postive intention on the
author's part to force screen reader behavior, just as the null alt
attribute for images does.  Use of the <th> element is *another* good
indicator of the author's intent, in this case to create a data table
rather than a layout table.  

By contrast, the absence of a summary attribute, like the absence of an
alt attribute, may simply indicate ignorance or indifference on the
author's part.

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt May [mailto:mcmay@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:49 pm
To: Chris Ridpath
Cc: WAI WCAG List
Subject: Re: Table Techniques - Summary



On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 12:42  PM, Chris Ridpath wrote:
> In our techniques call today we reached a resolution for layout table
> summaries:
> Layout tables must not have a summary (not even a NULL summary). This 
> reverses our earlier decision that layout tables may have a summary.

I disagree with this proposal.

A null summary is more indicative of an author having decided that a 
table is a layout table. It is the only way people have agreed on to 
date that we can point out layout tables in code.

> - it appears that layout tables will be deprecated in XHTML2

I'm doubtful here. Given that there is no means of semantically marking 
up a table as a layout table (which is why we're in this mess in the 
first place), deprecating its use as such is, shall we say, quixotic, 
since all they can specify is an element's presence, not its abstract 
use case.

> - we should not require a NULL summary just to make the author "jump
> through
> hoops"

That's the compromise we were, until now, willing to make.

In testing pages for accessibility, I would not consider either 
summary="" or no summary to be a fail. Rather, I would consider 
summary="" to be a pass, and no summary to be a case for triggering 
user checking (in EARL 1.0, a "cannotTell"). Given that less user 
checking equals better for most authors, I would indicate the former as 
a success case in the techniques document (and thus indicate the same 
to the E&R tool vendors), but I would accept the latter, with author 
verification.

-
m

Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 15:43:13 UTC