W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: How Much Of A Problem Are Tables Used for Design?

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:45:52 -0800
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19991116134110.00b28530@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: Kelly Ford <kford@teleport.com>
Cc: tvraman@us.ibm.com, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 12:24 PM 11/16/1999 , Kelly Ford wrote:
>I'm not saying readable to Kelly equals accessible.  But of the hundreds of
>people who are Blind I've worked with on internet access, Yahoo has been a
>favorite site because people find it functional.

 From a realistic point of view, if we say that tables should never
be used for layout, we might as well give up right now on trying to
sell web designers on accessibility.

Tables _are_ and _will_ be used for layout.  That genie is not going
to go back into the bottle.  Insisting that using tables for layout
is "wrong" will cost us more than it's worth.

We need to choose our battles carefully, and not lock ourselves into
a position that is completely unsupportable.  Fortunately, technology
_has_ advanced enough that tables can be unstacked relatively easily
by most assistive tech, and thus "losing" the tables-for-layout
battle is an acceptable loss, since it doesn't cause that much
damage -- the adaptive technology DOES exist to make them accessible.

Therefore I have to respectfully disagree with my good Gregory, and
support what Kelly says -- tables for layout, if not used in completely
awful ways, _are_ accessible thanks to advances in web technology.


-- 
Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 1999 16:51:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT