Re: summary attribute compromise proposal

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Leif Halvard Silli<lhs@malform.no> wrote:
> Murray Maloney On 09-08-06 16.23:
>
>> At 02:38 PM 8/6/2009 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>
>>> In that regard: the draft says that UAs MAY present @summary.
>>> I wonder if this is *predictable* enough? SHOULD seems
>>> righter.
>>>
>>> The reason for not saying MUST are:
>>>
>>> * to avoid duplication: if one of the new recommended methods
>>> have been used, and the UA is able to identify and support
>>> those. * that some tables in fact are layout tables.
>>
>> Repeated from a previous response to Maciej:
>>
>> I have noted comments from various people including yourself
>> about the visibility of @summary. I would like to suggest
>> wording...
>>
>> "The summary attribute is intended primarily for use by
>> Assistive Technology (AT).
>
>
>
> Would it not be fruitful to talk about media queries and media challenges
> instead of AT? So e.g. say that
>
> "The summary attribute is by default only intended for speech and
> screenreader media".
>
>> The value of the attribute is
>> intended to be text which describes or summarizes the table for
>> readers who may not be able to see it. Interactive screen
>> readers and other AT software can present the value of the
>> summary attribute to the user to assist them in understanding its
>> structure or content. Visual user agents may also display
>> the value of the summary attribute, but are advised to do so
>> only at user request or as a result of user preference
>> settings, because the information contained in the summary
>> attribute is typically redundant for individuals who can see
>> the table."
>
>>
>
>> I didn't spend a lot of time writing that, so it could
>
>> certainly benefit from wordsmithing.
>
> --
> leif halvard silli
>
>

I realize that I seem to be the odd woman out here by introducing a
note of caution, and bringing up the negative consequences of this
event, but I'd like to point out Sam Ruby's interpretation of this
event, as he just published in his weblog[1]:

"It looks like the summary attribute issue is finally well on its way
to being closed.  Recent events: John’s position, Ian’s position,
Maciej’s mediation, Ian’s acceptance, John’s withdrawal of his draft."

In other words, this is being played as a solution to the summary
attribute issue in its entirety, not just about summary attribute in
the Working Draft.

Now, it will be that much more difficult to achieve a real solution to
this problem, not the least of which anyone bringing up objections
will be seen as "not playing well", or being rigidly against
compromise.

It's called painting people into a corner.

Shelley

[1] http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/08/06/Disappearing-Silverware

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 14:41:03 UTC