- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:16:38 -0000
- To: "Gez Lemon" <g.lemon@webprofession.com>, "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:40:09 -0000, Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com> wrote: > > If we're talking about a long description for a data table, then I > agree. It should be available for everyone, provided in rich markup > and nothing new is required to do that. My concern is that people who > cannot see the data table visually will be left out, which obviously > doesn't help the people the summary attribute was originally intended > for. [...] > Ultimately, I think our different points of view are based around > whether the summary should provide a concise overview of the > structure, or whether it's a long description for the data table. I'm > of the opinion it's the former, and respect that you and many others > are of the opinion that it's the latter. Hi Gez Thanks for the clear explication of the different issues. I agree with your analysis. I've long believed that summary attribute is unnecessary: if a blind person needs a heads-up of the structure of a table, why would we not give that to a person with cognitive problems, too? But I'm intrigued by your statement that "summary should provide a concise overview of the structure" as opposed to "a long description for the data table". I'd find it very helpful to see some examples of a summary that is a concise overview rather than an long description, as I'm imagination-challenged and the two seem to be synonymous. Do you have any examples from your travels that spring to mind? b -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal) www.twitter.com/brucel
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 10:51:51 UTC