Re: WCAG-ISSUE-23 (DavidMacD): We should consider a new "Failure to provide role=presentation on a layout table"

James: Good one! I should research absolute claims like "none" when a sharp
eye is watching. There appears to be 3 new failures since 2008.  F90
(getting table header ids wrong), F91 missing TH on table headers, (2012)
and F92 role=presentation on a data table. I don't think changes, as you
say, the sentiment. Introducing a failure is like getting a law through
today's US congress.

Alastair, I think we explicitly allow layout tables.

F43 says "Note that the use of HTML tables for layout is not an example of
this failure as long as the layout table does not include improper
structural markup such as <th> or <caption> elements."

F46 says "Although WCAG 2 does not prohibit the use of layout tables,
CSS-based layouts are recommended in order to retain the defined semantic
meaning of the HTML table elements and to conform to the coding practice of
separating presentation from content."

Anyway, I'm glad to get a sense of the diversity of opinion... without
strong consensus from evaluators and screen reader users, no failure
proposal has a hope. I'll cross the aisle and dump the failure for a
Sufficient Technique. I'll close the issue.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
wrote:

> David,
>
> I understand the point - but we have introduced at least one failure
> technique which was F92 which we introduced in the latest update?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F92.html
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2014, at 7:31 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> I should also add that historically, failure techniqies have a fair amount
> of politics surrounding them. Getting one introduced is a little like
> getting a new law passed through US congress except harder. Since 2008 we
> have introduced about about 115 sufficient techniques, and not one failure
> technique.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:12:06 -0700
> From: lorettaguarino@google.com
> To: akirkpat@adobe.com
> CC: rcorominas@technosite.es; faulkner.steve@gmail.com;
> w.fiers@accessibility.nl; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG-ISSUE-23 (DavidMacD): We should consider a new "Failure
> to provide role=presentation on a layout table"
>
> This discussion is making me think we should write a technique for using
> role=presentation with layout tables, rather than writing a failure for not
> using it.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> Is testing with real AT enough? The following table, which also containt
> nested tables, is completely ignored by JAWS 14 + Firefox / IE 8 and Safari
> + VoiceOver (at least). They don't announce any table, they don't find any
> table; if you try to navigate tables, they say "no tables found":
>
> Ramon,
> I tried your table (https://awkawk.github.io/layout_table.html) with JAWS
> 15/FF and got the following speech when reading line-by-line:
>
> Layout Table Example - Mozilla Firefox
> Layout Table Example
>
> heading level 1 Layout Table Example
>
> table with 2 columns and 3 rows
> heading level 1 My page
>
> table with 1 columns and 1 rows nesting level 1
> heading level 2 My article
>
> This is my article
> table end nesting level 1
>
> table with 1 columns and 1 rows nesting level 1
> heading level 2 My sidebar
>
> This is my sidebar
> table end nesting level 1
>
> © My Website 2014
>
> That said, I like the concept of requiring a way to programmatically and
> positively identify layout tables.  In the past there have been suggestions
> that layout tables should be marked with summary="" (I am in no way
> advocating for this now, just to be clear!) and even now we are talking
> about different heuristics to identify layout tables.  It seems that the
> big issue is that assistive technologies could implement the idea that Jon
> Avila suggested (essentially "no TH = layout table") and the result would
> probably be very good for not treating layout tables as tables, but I
> suspect that it would also be disliked as it would also make tables that
> are incorrectly coded today but correctly regarded as data tables less
> accessible for the screen reader users.
>
> But I also go back to the questions about what does this do to the set of
> pages with currently conformant tables and what is the real impact on
> screen reader users.  As layout tables are less ubiquitious now and with
> HTML5 requiring role=presentation on layout tables, is this actually less
> of a problem now?  Would this be a technique that is addressing an old but
> diminishing problem?
>
> I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but I'm sure that
> we'll be talking about it more...
>
> AWK
>
>
>