- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:22:51 -0500
- To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Ben Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>, "Al Gilman" <alfred.s.gilman@ieee.org>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Gez wrote, > Redesigning it so that it's more > difficult to read without any kind of user testing is not an > improvement. As for rearranging the data table to simplify the problem - the example Gez provided is a USER generated table. The USER wants to view the table like he wants to view it, as it allows USER's to quickly get an overview in order to make timely decisions. Suggesting the USER simplifies their choices so that it isn't in an order they can easily analyze, or contains the compound data they require, isn't reasonable. Priorities of constituencies principle applies here. USERS first. http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies With the headers/id approach. ANY table with ANY relationship between heading cells and data cells can be defined directly by adding id attributes and headers attributes to the cells - not touching the structure of the table. ANY table ANY relationship. It enables accessibility for USER generated tables created on the fly. Gez's example is a user generated table, and is the way the user wants the table to be presented in order they can perform their job adequately. Why should it be re-arranged when it's perfectly accessible now, with the smallest change to the spec? PFWG's advice stated: "A disability constituency currently uses and depends on this feature (@headers): anyone offering to remove it should be expected to demonstrate that the replacement works better and is in service. Dropping 'headers' because 'scope' could afford the same semantics in 'most of the cases' is a wrong decision; now or, taken in isolation, for the future. The headers/id technique provides functionality today. If it is to be worked out of the system, it should not be an abrupt drop. Transition it out with something better in an orderly and graceful manner." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0145.html The current HTML 5 spec does not provide the ability to mark up complex tables such that current AT will be able to decipher the relationships. While it is commendable to improve the algorithm, headers/id functionality is needed for current as well as backwards compatibility. Any improvements to the algorithm shouldn't preclude grandfathering in headers/id. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 11:23:32 UTC