W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

Checkpoint 5.3 (was RE: [media] WAI guidelines yield...)

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:02:42 -0400
Message-ID: <AF196F44735ED411B93A00508BDFB1080E432F@WDCROBEXC09>
To: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
This is another problem area that Len has recently highlighted.
Sure, the WCAG does not prohibit tables for layout (at least not until one
is interested in AAA).
The problem is that the requirement for "sensible reading order"  is not
strong enough.  A page can be P1 compliant, but render to a screen reader as
complete hash that not understandable.  See Len's page for a detailed
explanation.  Real-life examples are not all that hard to come by.
I would advocate changing Checkpoint 5.3 (Do not use tables for layout
unless the table makes sense when linearized) to P1, but delete the
disclaimer note (tables should not be used for layout [at all]) or move it
to Checkpoint 3.3 (Use style sheets to control layout and presentation)
which should remain at P2.
Ref URL:  <http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday/wai/backwards.html>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:24 PM
> To: Kelly Ford; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [media] WAI guidelines yield the highest probability of
> true Web access
> At 11:01 AM -0700 10/24/00, Kelly Ford wrote:
>>> 5. Create tables that transform gracefully. Tables for 
>>> layout equals NO-NO.
> I believe this is a misreading of the guidelines by the author
> of the article.
>> When I speak about web accessibility, this is one of the most 
>> controversial issues.  I know this has been talked about here before 
>> but it is my contention that most tables used for layout do 
>> transform gracefully in the web browsing solutions used by people 
>> with disabilities and are not a major impediment to accessibility.
> I think Kelly is correct.  I do not believe that layout tables are
> currently a major accessibility barrier.  I believe the current
> guidelines (WCAG 1.0) reflect this; however, there is an education
> problem because for so long, many people were running around equating
> tables with inaccessible design and promoting CSS-P as an alternative
> (despite the fact that it still is not viable to this day).
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 10:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC