- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 12:19:07 -0500
- To: joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
>> James wrote: >> according to [1] @summary is >> present on about 2.5% of tables, I would expect it to be unhelpful on >> many of those > Joshue O Connor wrote: > That may be true, but I guess that's a qualitative issue. Such as how > useful a summary of the tables purpose and content, it is. IMO @summary > is still important to the small percentage of users who need that > information. Never mind the issue of UA support for any future > *improvements* that may be conjured up. Some of the rationale from the headers issue [1] may be applicable to the summary issue. For instance: Rationale: Why Headers Should Not be Included (second bullet) - ... - "An insufficient amount of use cases exist to justify id/headers." Rationale: Why Headers Should be Included (second bullet) - ... - "No set number of use cases proves a feature should be included or excluded from the spec. The W3C requires that technologies must be accessible. By definition, people with disabilities are a minority. Accessibility features address failure modes that are infrequent, but critical when they occur." WCAG 2 also recommends "Using the summary attribute of the table element to give an overview of data tables" [2]. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/#H73 -- Laura L. Carlson http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 17:19:11 UTC