- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:09:12 +0000
- To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Philip, > Why is 'role="presentation"' preferable to 'role="layout"' here ? > I would have thought that the latter would be more transparent > to authors. because ther is no role="layout" defined as far as I am aware, but there is a role="presentation" defined in WAI-ARIA [1] and this includes as one of its example use cases "A layout table and/or any of its associated cells, rows, etc." [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#presentation regards stevef On 01/03/2009, Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote: > [All individuals removed from CC list] > > Composite reply, having watched the debate silently so far : > > Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > > > This is also related to how sighted persons perceive a table. We perceive > it as a collections of cells, in different relationships. To us there is one > "cell" - or place - that relates to all the cells, and that is the caption. > To add a summary for the table container becomes a little bit ... abstract. > > > > But we are not discussing where the summary should appear visually; > we are discussing where it should appear in the markup. And in the > markup, <TABLE> is the 'one "cell" - or place - that relates to all > the cells', so it is surely as an attribute of <TABLE> that "summary" > should appear. > > Gez Lemon wrote : > > > A better approach to explicitly identify layout tables would be to use > > explicit markup, rather than interfering with an attribute whose > > primary purpose is to provide guidance on how to read a data table for > > people with vision impairments. Using role="presentation" on a layout > > table is infinitely better overloading the definition of the summary > > attribute. > > Why is 'role="presentation"' preferable to 'role="layout"' here ? > I would have thought that the latter would be more transparent > to authors. > > Ian Hickson wrote : > > > The spec does in fact currently prohibit [the use of layout tables], > > explicitly, several times. > > Then I think this aspect of the specification should be re-visited. > I believe that the specification should set out to address what is, > and what is not, syntactically valid HTML; I do not think that it > should attempt to define what is /semantically/ valid HTML, though > it should most certainly provide informative guidance on the latter. > > Philip TAYLOR > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 11:09:53 UTC