Re: How to make complex data tables more accessible to screen-reader users

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>>> I would encourage you to review and update the following wiki 
>>>>>> page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE
>>>>> Could you elaborate on how you would like me to update it?
>>>> Per action 126[1], I would like to see that the Wiki page adequately 
>>>> reflects both (all) viewpoints.  If you have nothing to add at this 
>>>> time, that's fine.
>>> [...] What kind of content should I add? What structure is going to be 
>>> of most help in finding consensus?
>> I did not prepare that wiki page, my understanding is that it was 
>> prepared in order to help facilitate a vote, and that those who were in 
>> favor of having a vote were actively working on preparing the text that 
>> people would vote on.
> 
> I think if we want text to support a vote, one plan of action that might 
> be more effective than jointly editing the above wiki would be for 
> interested parties to send in 150-word essays that could be included with 
> the vote, and which people could read before voting. That way, each "side" 
> gets to put forward their opinion, and we limit the total amount of 
> content that people might be exposed to. (I am confident that if we asked 
> people to read the above wiki, they'd ignore most of it.)
> 
> Would that be acceptable?
> 
> (To avoid ambiguity, I would define "word count" as the number output by 
> the "wc" Unix command line program with the -w argument.)

Short answer: Sure.

Long answer:

A number of people, including apparently the entire PF Working Group, 
object to the current draft.  If the PF Working Group's objections can 
be resolved independent of me; then trust me, that's entirely fine with 
me.  If the path forward that both you and the PF Working Group would 
prefer is to have a vote, I will be glad to help, with whatever vote 
text the two of you, and the remainder of the Working Group are OK with.

But since you directed your question to me, I'll give my personal input, 
independent of my role as co-chair.  I personally favor votes being held 
on concrete spec text as opposed to essays.  Such votes are unambiguous 
and enable readers to evaluate the consequences of the alternatives in 
context.  I'm concerned that doing anything else will lead to further 
misunderstandings, requests for clarifications, and votes.

But I'm quite willing that put my opinions aside.  If the consensus of 
the working group is to have a vote on either a set of short essays or 
on a comprehensive wiki page, then I'm willing to both facilitate the 
vote and to attempt to evaluate consensus on the results.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 11:33:38 UTC