W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: PF Response: @Summary

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:48:25 +0300
Cc: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "wai-liaison@w3.org" <wai-liaison@w3.org>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EEB20BE2-C72C-4C05-9897-00AC09CDA35C@iki.fi>
To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
On Jul 6, 2009, at 20:50, Joshue O Connor wrote:

> Ok, if you look at the following complex table at Gez Lemons site,  
> Juicy
> Studio. [1]
> For a suitable @summary overview you could say something like:
> <table summary="A complex table of two halves. Firstly, there are 7
> columns with the headings Child Investment, Type, Status, Allocation,
> Total Cost of Ownership, Return on Investment, Net Present Value, with
> their corresponding values in rows beneath them. The table is then
> followed by a column called Property that has two sections of
> sub-headings of Budgeted, Actual and Forecasted with their  
> corresponding
> running cost values for three weekly periods starting from the 12th of
> December 2005 to the 26th">.

> [1} http://juicystudio.com/wcag/tables/complexdatatable.html

I observe that the actual summary looks like this:

> <table summary="Child investment portfolios with budgeted, actual  
> and forecast running costs for particular dates">

It's much shorter, and it's caption-like.

I think this anecdotal case study supports the notion that @summary  
isn't actually used as prescribed--not even by experts.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 10:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:34 UTC