W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: [wcag2] Layout tables

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:09:01 +0300
To: oedipus@hicom.net, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001701c425e5$96f03680$340aa8c0@patirsrv.patir.com>

> such simple binding/orientational mechanisms as LABEL, 
> FIELDSET, and LEGEND -- making anything other than the 
> simplest 1 or 2 field form maddeningly difficult to complete, 
> let alone submit with any sense of confidence that it has 
> been completed correctly...

So.. Tables should not separate pieces of content that belong together.
However separating the navigation from the main content ....
 

> than are dreamed of in all our philosophies, so to base our 
> conclusions and recommendations upon our limited knowledge 
> slash imaginations is not only folly -- it is sheer madness...
That is why we need semantic layer - the more we know about a site, site
content, the more access we have to information that can make it
accessible.
Then all we need is lots of personalization (which can be XSL) 

I would go for capturing concepts in the page  not symptomatic problem
solving.


> as for the oft-quoted quote reality unquote of clients 
> demanding layout tables for backwards compatibility here's a 
> counter-reality check: if the concern is quote graceful 
> degradation unquote, then how can one justify the use of 
> tables in the name of quote older browsers unquote when such 
> quote older browsers unquote include table-incapable 
> browsers, such as lynx and other text-based browsers...

Reality check (I can't believe I am saying this) of what people concerns
are and how much trouble, I the web designer, will get into, for buying
your world vision

That is why I go for semantic capture working with  _alternate
renderings_

More then that.

Ignoring problems feeling and concerns, even when they belong to other
people, is not often constructive.

(It can be a good vent for frustrations though)

My vote goes to: Saying and addressing the  concerns as a step one -so
long as it is followed by step two,  problem solving.

The problem is step one is too often the end of the argument.

> tasteless joke and a massive waste of the time and talent of 
> all who have contributed to the effort, formally and informally...

Yeh, we all feel like that sometimes. But the web is more accessible
then it was, and you have largely contributed to that Gregory.

Personally I think we could put accessibility back to the incubation
stage, brainstorm and road map on approaches and methodologies, and see
if we could build a better more inclusive direction for us to head.

But even as we go, good is happening.

All the best,
lisa
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 04:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT