- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:03:57 +0000
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: > Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> >> Worth noting that WCAG 2 techniques are advisory, rather than >> mandatory. Personally, I disagree with this technique's particular >> suggested use of summary for simple tables...and, as it's only >> advisory, that's fine...as long as i and my users are happy that the >> actual mandatory SC 1.3.1 is satisfied. > > It's not really fine because WCAG techniques are supposed to be helpful. If > this technique is suggesting something that is widely held to be bad > practice then it should be updated to describe what good practice actually > is. Of course the WCAG technique should be changed. The problem is that, unless I missed it, the techniques doc hasn't been up for review (though I assume any feedback sent to the appropriate list would be enough to trigger that conversation). Also, there will be disagreement even among users (of AT in particular) and experts about what *they* prefer...so for each voice saying that the technique isn't valuable there'll be another saying that in fact it is - hence the advisory, informative nature of the techniques. > For example it is unclear that @summary will be needed to satisfy 1.3.1 at > all since information about the structure of the data is available through > the table cell-headers relationships hence satisfying the "relationships > [...] can be programmatically determined" part of the clause. Yup, that's my interpretation as well - unless the structure really does require further explanation because it's so complex and/or non-obvious, at which point I'd posit that the problem is more with the table itself and it presenting too much data. Don't get me wrong, I would want authors to be able to use @summary in that way if they feel that it's needed...but wouldn't say that that's the only valid use for it. P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 14:04:38 UTC