- From: Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:50:40 +0200
- To: acampbell@nomensa.com
- CC: "faulkner.steve@gmail.com" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am not saying that it is consistent or that we should rely on heuristics, what I'm saying is that it is not always failing and that a WCAG failure would mean "you have to change this". Let's imagine a closed environment with a web app where the layout tables are supported, even if they have no role="presentation". Will be mandatory to find and change all the offending tables (distinguishing them from other possible data tables) just to solve a no-problem? Cheers, Ramón. Alastair wrote: > Ramón Corominas wrote: > "Thus, I would say that -at least in this case- the layout table is a way of using technology that is "accessibility supported", that is, it "has been tested for interoperability with users' assistive technology". > Maybe it is ugly, but it is supported." > > Well, last time I came across this as an issue (on an intranet) there were no table headings, summary, or anything to mark the tables as data. However, NVDA and VoiceOver both announced the table cells. > > That is the point though - it is not consistent unless you specify it. I don't think relying on AT heuristics is good enough.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 09:52:05 UTC