- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:24:29 +0200
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- CC: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Murray Maloney On 09-08-08 04.39: >>> Conclusion: 1) We need a time machine. 2) @summary doesn't >>> have the same role to play as it potentially had. > >> 2) I don't see how you reach this conclusion. @summary will >> complete its useful life after ARIA is fully supported, >> deployed and employed. There is no need to push it onto an >> ice flow just yet. We can afford to wait until its >> replacement is actually in place. Substitute "same role" with "same future". ;-) Murray Maloney On 09-08-08 06.51: > At 09:39 PM 8/7/2009 -0500, Murray Maloney wrote: >> At 02:15 AM 8/8/2009 +0200, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >>> [...] So, might it be that table@summary was meant to be >>> presented to AT users /before/ the entire table had been >>> rendered? If so, then this might also explain why some >>> @summary texts perhaps are more wordy than we today >>> consider kosher: In such a scenario it would perhaps not >>> matter if the summary repeated bits of what the user later >>> would read inside a caption. (For instance, perhaps the >>> user would use the @summary info to simply skip >>> reading/loading the table?) >> >> Exactly. The reader gets to the table and pauses. >> >> My understanding at the time was the user could proceed apace >> or ask for the table title and summary, then possibly look >> ahead to the caption and legend, before deciding whether to >> simply skip over the table or proceed. Developers at the time >> felt that having @summary on <TABLE allowed for a breakpoint >> to be set, facilitating skipping over the table and saving >> cycles in the process. > > I just realized that I left out an important part... some of > the people involved at the time had experience with Braille > publishing and with Braille readers, and others had been > involved with ICADD. They were unanimous in expressing the need > for pausing at a table to survey the terrain before proceeding, > lest they enter a rat's nest of incomprehensible data. > Breakpoint set, they could examine the table element for > in-attribute information and related links to long > descriptions, and present available information to the user to > help them make a decision about how to proceed. Of course, ARIA > attributes will provide a better solution in time. Cool to hear how @summary was compatible with "the Web" of around 1997. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 14:25:18 UTC