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

RE: Proposed checkpoint for table summary information

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:15:41 -0500
Message-Id: <v01540b03b42b8e81bbb8@[128.104.23.196]>
To: "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Cc: "Denis Anson" <danson@miseri.edu>
see comment at MN:

At 9:01 AM 10/12/99, Denis Anson wrote:
>Ian,
>
>How would you decide if you had met 9.4?  Would providing the link text be
>enough?  How about the link address?  This checkpoint item is so vague that
>I don't think that anyone could come up with a definitive determination of
>meeting it.
>
>I fear that the proposed checkpoint has the same limitations: too much info
>described to vaguely.  Would access to the table caption and table summary
>be adequate?  What if the table summary is absent?  What information "about"
>table headers should be provided?  The content or just the existence of
>them?  What is the intent of a table?  Do you mean that it is providing
>tabular data as opposed to layout information, or do you mean that the table
>is a data table presenting the demographics of a study sample?  If the
>summary information is not there, and a caption is not there, the user agent
>would have no way of knowing the intent of a table.
>
>Table size information probably shouldn't be priority 1.  This information
>isn't necessarily available to the visual user, since tables may be larger
>than the available screen space.
>
>Denis Anson, MS, OTR
----
>From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
>Of Ian Jacobs
>Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 1:44 PM
>To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Subject: Proposed checkpoint for table summary information
>
>Hello,
>
>I received an action item at the 6 October teleconf [1] to propose
>a checkpoint for table summary information. The goals of the proposal:
>
>1) Create a checkpoint analogous to 9.4 (for links):
>
>   9.4  For a selected link, provide information to help
>        the user decide whether to follow the link.
>
>2) Replace existing 9.8 and 9.9 which were for dependent user agents
>   only:
>
>   9.8 Provide access to header information for a selected table
>            cell. [Priority 1]
>
>   9.9 For dependent user agents only. Indicate the row and column
>       dimensions of a selected table. [Priority 3]
>
>PROPOSED CHECKPOINT:
>
>  For a selected table, provide information to help the user
>  understand the purpose of the table and the organization
>  of its cells.
>     For example, provide information about table headers,
>     table dimensions, table caption and summary information,
>     cell position information, headers associated with a
>     selected table cell, etc.
>
>  I suggest priority 1 for this checkpoint.
>
> - Ian

MN:  I agree that we may need to do some additional word smithing here, but not
a bad first attempt to combine these.  However, I think some portion of the
problem
with tables should remain a P1, and depending upon how we word this, it may
be easier from a priority standpoint, to keep two checkpoints rather than
combine
this?
Received on Thursday, 14 October 1999 10:13:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:34 GMT