- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:41:32 +0100
- To: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Ben 'Cerbera' Millard wrote: > > I've been a busy bee! More collecting, analysing and simulated > retrofitting: > > <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/readme.html> This is really interesting :) > Dumping links to tables with a short list of observations is hopefully > helpful in the [need to categorise] trends and patterns in the way > authors are building tables. I intend to summarise my observations after > analysing more tables. Perhaps in time for the [November meeting] in > Boston which I'll attend. Excellent. I've had a look at a random selection of the tables you produced in the table inspector; where the headings are marked up at-all, the smart colspan algorithm seems to do a very good job at getting the column headers right, which is encouraging. > I've taken a snapshot of the Wisconsin University budget tables done > some simulated retrofits: > > <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/tables/finance/> > > It seems they don't strictly need headers+id to express the > relationships. And their use of headers+id was broken: one bogus value > and several empty string values. There are notes about this in the main > readme, under the "Finance" section. It is the prevalence of this sort of problem that makes me wonder if giving people the power of headers+id isn't just enabling authors to shoot themselves in the foot, accessibility wise. Even if we do want to keep it, I think the spec should be clear that it is only to be used when other solutions cannot suffice. > The opening sentence is particularly interesting to me: > > [[[ > One of the most common accessibility problems we find when conducting > the Better Connected survey is the lack of marked up headers in data > tables. > ]]] The example table is interesting there because the row headers are not in the first column of the table. I think that's a case where we will always need the author to do the right thing in the markup - i.e. to use <th> for headers - because we will be unable to get the right answer heuristically. > This correlates with an [earlier finding] where I noticed most tables > don't use <th>. One possibility is to make tables having 1+ <th> a conformance requirement, however I think there might be use cases (except tables for layout) where this isn't appropriate. [1] was pointed out to me as an example of this; I don't think it's really tabular data but I'm not sure what alternative markup you would use to present the same information. > So if we can find ways for UAs to figure out which are the headers in > tables which aren't using <th>, that might be an instant win for > accessibility. It's a lot easier if authors use <th> and retrofit legacy > content, of course. But we can continue [evangalising] better authoring > practices whilst also giving UAs a headstart. My current thinking on this is that we should do it for common, simple, cases but trying to make extensive use of e.g. attributes or child elements of the <td> element is probably too error prone to be worth specifying. However this might be an area where it is OK to say UAs MAY associate additional headers with a cell using heuristic methods. The lowest hanging fruit I can see are tables where there are no headers marked and the first n rows and m columns are headers. This case seems common enough to be worth specifying some handling for. The trick is to get the right values of n and m. Possibly we can look at the top left of the table and a) if the top left cell has colspan > 1 or rowspan > 1 we set n=rowspan and m=colspan. Otherwise we look for empty cells and set n=#empty rows and m=#empty columns. If there are no empty rows or columns, we assume n=m=1. However this will not always get the right answer e.g. with [2] where the P column would become a row header. [1] http://www.pointerklubben.se/stamtavla.asp?Id=S35236/97 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/table/default.stm -- "Mixed up signals Bullet train People snuffed out in the brutal rain" --Conner Oberst
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 18:41:47 UTC