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

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Ian Hickson<> wrote:
> 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.

This is the first I've heard you refer to usability studies. Can you
provide a link to these studies?

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


Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:08:44 UTC