- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:14:31 -0500
- To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
James Graham wrote: > The > strongest way to make the case that these issues need to be addressed is > to go away and implement the current spec and show how it doesn't work > Findings from headers/id Testing (Bug 5822): http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/TableHeadersTestingBug5822#head-4dd98a1e6b2646ef8c2be83dd7b6c93622e25f4b > Headers/id allowed the assistive technology combinations tested to > successfully announce relationships 5 out of 6 times. > > Scope failed 6 out of 6 times. The failure of support for scope means > that scope is currently not an effective option. > > Although it is widely known that scope isn't well supported by > assistive technology [1 2 3 4 5], its use is strongly recommend, > because it's easy to author, works with simpler data tables, and > support is likely to improve. Best Regards, Laura
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 20:15:08 UTC