Re: Taking another round at @summary

Hi Maciej,


> This issue has been discussed at length before. Many of the points you mention have been raised before, as have the counterpoints posted by others, and the counter-counter-points raised in response to those. If we can make progress on this issue, or add new information, then that is great. And I appreciate your desire to find points of agreement.

Thank you. My goal is to help find a compromise on something that, as of yet, still looks like a lost cause for us because we don't seem to be heard. Nothing else.

That being said, most of my questions remain unanswered as of yet. And I humbly believe that not all of them were irrelevant. Uninteresting to most, maybe, but not irrelevant.

The simple fact that HTML5 could be unusable by an industry that represents over 7 million people because it conflicts with existing governement standards should be enough to at least ring a bell as to the potential consequences of removing an otherwise harmless table attribute. Now I know 7 million is not a lot, but it's still an indicator of a much deeper problem.

Why not repair what's broken instead of reinventing the wheel again? Now's the time.


> But I encourage everyone to think about whether your points have been made before (check the archives if needed) and try to avoid repetition. 

True, but with thousands of emails to look through, this is hardly something that we can do with a limited time schedule. 

After all, for the vast majority of us, following the evolution HTML5 remains, above all else, a hobby, not a job.


> Please all, keep in mind that this topic is one of the few that tend to devolve into perma-threads, and discussion in the past has gotten quite heated. Be cautious with your phrasing, and please try to avoid the same points to excess.

With all due respect, if this topic keeps turning into perma-threads, then let's settle it once and for all instead of constantly bringing it to a dead end. 

I don't think anybody enjoys bringing the same points over and over again to these lists. I, for one, think it's necessary.

I won't speak for anyone else, but as long as I feel we're not being heard, as long as I feel the reality of the users out there is not being taken into account responsibly, I will feel some points need to be taken back to the table. 

The questions may keep coming back, but so far, all I've really heard from the editors was that "nobody wanted to make tables less accessible" and that @summary needed to be replaced with "a variety of more effective techniques". Ian summed it up really well earlier. 

Yet, all my questions regarding backward compatiblity for AT users stuck with outdated version of Jaws or whatever remain unanswered.

I know these discussions have taken place before, but maybe we need more people to express how wrong we think this is so that maybe, one day, we either get the answers we want or a solution that's satisfying for everyone. 

Besides, the minority of people on these lists who focus on accessibility needs to be heard. All I'm doing right now doing a little push and joining my voice to those who've already carried that battle.

I don't see any consensus here so far. Isn't this what this process is all about?

Best regards,

--
Denis Boudreau,
Président

Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
1751 rue Richardson, bureau 6111
Montréal (Qc), Canada  H3K 1G6

Téléphone : +1 514.312.3378
Sans frais : +1 877.315.5550
Télécopieur : +1 514.667.2216
dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com
http://www.accessibiliteweb.com/