Re: My final attempt on explanation (was RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2)

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> 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?

I think it is possible that such information could be constructed, but I 
think that in practice even accessibility experts are unable to actually 
draw the line between what fits that bill and what doesn't, and any 
feature that relies on average authors being able to make that 
determination is fundamentally too complicated to use, and we should not 
include it in the language.

> > 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.

I think the information is useful, but I don't think in practice it needs 
to be included explicitly, because the information will, based on 
usability studies I have seen, be derived by the user from the table 
structure itself.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 05:03:49 UTC