Re: UA ISSUE OF THE WEEK: Table element access

I think you hit upon some central issues.

1. The inclusion of rendering medium in the checkpoint.  I think we need
this, otherwise as long as a user agent renders a table cell (no matter
what medium) it will satisfy the checkpoint.  

2. I used the word "view" to indicate the presentation of orientation
information (either automatically or on command) and "command" to indcate
the user control over changing the focus.

3. I think in the case of nested tables we want to make sure that the user
can be oriented to the tables and navigated between the nested tables.

Jon



At 01:56 PM 1/8/99 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>My comments...
>
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>  
>  Checkpoint 1: Allow a user using an auditory, Braille and/or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document to view the information in a single table
>  cell.
>
>CMN:: Priority 1
>  
>  Checkpoint 2: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille and/or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document commands to move the rendering focus
>  between table cells.
>  
>CMN:: Priority 1
>
>  Checkpoint 3: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille and/or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document an option to have header information
>  viewed as part of the table cell rendering.
>  
>  Checkpoint 4: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille and/or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document a command to view the header information
>  associated with a table cell.
>  
>CMN:: I don't see how these (3 and 4) are distinct enough to be separate
>checkpoints. In 4, provide a mechanism (rather than a command). For
>example, in a visual browser the mechanism is to be able to scroll along
>the layout axes and determine the Headers by visual cues. Navigating cells
>horizontally and vertically would help this.
>
>  Checkpoint 5: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document a command to view the summary information
>  of the current table.
>
>CMN:: replace command with mechanism. For example, simply rendering the
>contents of the summary would be satisfactory. (Not that I imagine many
>browsers will take that approach)
>  
>  Checkpoint 6: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document the ability to search for text in the
>  current table. 
>  
>CMN:: Provide a user the ability... - not media dependent
>
>  Checkpoint 7: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document the ability to view the nesting
>  relationships of nested tables.
>  
>  Checkpoint 8: Provide a user using an auditory, Braille or visually
>  enlarged rendering of a document commands to move the rendering focus
>  between nested tables.
>  
>CMN:: 7 seems like an almost absolutely redundant subset of 8.
>  
>  Checkpoints 1,2,3,4 and 5 may be also good to think about in relation to
>  access to frames.
>  
>I agree. But I think frames are a simpler problem for people working with
>window interfaces, since they can be reproduced as if they were windows
>(in theory anyway).
>
>As a general comment, 'enlarged rendering is ill-defined. Does this mean a
>font size greater than n? (where n is an arbitrary number that we pick?)
>
>Hope you daughter is better
>
>Charles McCathieNevile
> 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess

Received on Friday, 8 January 1999 16:05:31 UTC