W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2009

Re: Draft text for summary attribute definition

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:26:19 -0600
Cc: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Message-Id: <2330E4E2-3C6D-46C9-9882-3F062803F4B6@robburns.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Hi Leif,

On Mar 1, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Robert J Burns 2009-03-01 20.43:
>> On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>>> As for your proposal directly. I don't have any strong objections  
>>>> to this approach. I also think your proposal would work equally  
>>>> well with either version A or version B.
>>>
>>> Yes, I guess so. I saw text bit in version b which spoke about  
>>> other users than speech and braille users, and I was not certain I  
>>> agreed to that.
>> Could you be more specific about which users you feel should not be  
>> handled by summary. I could try to guess, but I might guess  
>> incorrectly.
>
> This is back to the issue of who @summary is for. I was compelled by  
> Joshue's argument that it is better to have a specific @summary  
> attribute than a to watered following the logic that it "perhaps"  
> can be useful to other groups. In his own write [1]:
>
> 	"... better for @summary to properly serve the
> needs of non-sighted users than to  provide a /sort of/ solution for  
> other user groups. Also its worth saying that I would loath to see  
> @summary (or any other useful elements/attributes) be removed and  
> replaced because it /doesn't/ sort of, 'do' something for other user  
> groups."
>
> My thinking is that if one wants to add info for other users that  
> are challenged in their reading, one could use caption@title and  
> make it visible in <caption> via CSS. Eventually one can use  
> table@title.

I understood Joshue's comment to be about general users or users who  
did not need any extra information to consume the table.

However, could you discuss specifically which users targeted by  
version B that are not targeted by version A that led you to not  
support version B. I'm not trying to confront you on this, I simply  
want to make not of the specific objection on the wiki page. Two  
differences I see between version A and version B targeted users are  
those with cognitive disabilities and users of non-visual UAs (who may  
not necessarily have visual disabilities). So though I had originally  
assumed you meant those with cognitive disabilities, I have to admit  
I'm not sure which group of users led you to not support version B.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2009 20:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:43 UTC