- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 23:56:46 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > This is not the only kind of data that is being proposed as advisable for > the summary="" attribute. Take John's example, for instance: > > summary="Schedule for Route 7 going downtown. Service begins at 4:00 AM > and ends at midnight. Intersections are listed in the top row. Find > the intersection closest to your starting point or destination, then > read down that column to find out what time the bus leaves that > intersection." > > This information is as useful for the visually impaired as for anyone > else. > So we agree that there is information pertaining to a table that would be benefit both sighted users and non-sighted users. I would agree that caption _IS_ an appropriate place for that type of information (including some sentences from John's example). But I feel this is actually irrelevant to the discussion. What is being stated is that there is information pertaining to a table that would be beneficial to non-sighted users but redundant (and possibly distracting?) for sighted users. Things like merged columns/rows, quick synopsis of the 'axis' of a table, etc. Do you disagree with this? > In practice, strictly structural data can be gleaned by navigating the > table (if you watch usability studies if users with ATs reading tables, > they quickly get a feel of the table by navigating it, without the need > for a descripion of the table structure). > It sounds like you disagree with the idea that spatial/structural information about a table is useful for non-sighted users because you watched some usability studies. Please correct my assessment. Jeff
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 04:57:30 UTC