W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2014

RE: HTML5 DL Element vs. WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

From: Jan Eric Hellbusch <hellbusch@2bweb.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:53:55 +0100
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01cf2435$f408fc90$dc1af5b0$@2bweb.de>

> I guess my question is this: Is it really "bad web design" to use the DL,
DT, and DD
> elements exactly as they were intended to be used (in the case of creating
> glossary, for example, or something reasonably similar) just because
> readers aren't implementing it correctly? Put another way, do we stop
using the
> correct element for the job just because of poor implementation, or do we
> continue to use the correct element and let the screen reader makers know
> about the issues?

If they only would. 

The question is probably more like "Is using DL according to spec
accessibility supported?" There are some techniques to WCAG 2.0 implying
that it is. And yet they are usually not good to use in JAWS Version x to y.
I have got into the habit of adding p elements:

<dt>a term</dt>
<dd><p>a definition</p></dd>

In my own projects, so that I can use the lists efficiently, but it does
look rather silly. 

Maybe "bad design" is too drastic. But as far as I am concerned, code should
work as best as possible for users. JAWS hasn't supported the dl structure
properly in the last 10 years, so when should I expect dl to be supported? I
did look into other screen readers on the matter some time ago, but the
situation wasn't that good, either - sorry, I can't remember the details
other than I often saw plain text without list semantics.


Jan Eric Hellbusch 
Tel.: +49 (231) 33005825 oder +49 (163) 3369925
Accessibility-Beratung: http://2bweb.de 
Blog: www.chemnitzer-14.de
Bücher, Artikel: www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 18:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC