- From: Ilya Streltsyn via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 10:09:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> the same concept for layout lists (a.k.a. "list-itis") @cookiecrook, I agree with your point about Priority of Constituencies in the twitter discussions, but I'd like to point out to what I believe is a significant difference between misusing tables for layout and displaying lists with `list-style-type: none`. Tables were used for layout _because of their display,_ ignoring the semantics. Lists were used for things that don't look list-like _because of their semantics,_ to convey that the following items belong to the same set, and specifically to enable non-visual aids like the count of the items. This seems to be the opposite to the "layout tables" concept. Yes, visual representation of these items can differ from the typical bulleted/numbered list in text, but usually not to the extent that the sighted user stops to interpret them as e.g. "list of 5 horizontal navigation links" or "portion of the 15 items of the catalog list sorted by price". And I'm not sure that hiding this intended meaning that authors _did_ put into the markup from the non-visual users serves the users' priority, rather than the _purely theoretical_ concept that "screenreader should read only what is explicitly on the screen". Surely, as an author, I might be biased about this:). Is there some evidence that presenting lists without explicit list styles as lists to screenreader users harms their UX? -- GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3596#issuecomment-461753340 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 February 2019 10:09:35 UTC