- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:10:06 -0600
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Shelley, It is good to see the summary attribute restored in your change proposal to clean up tables [1] for HTML ISSUE 92 [2]. Thank you. Something that is missing in this proposal is the table headers attribute [3] that had been restored in Issue 20. [4] Please consider adding it. History of the @headers issue is detailed in the Wiki. [5] [6] Thanks. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/cleanuptable [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/92 [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/tabular-data.html#attr-tdth-headers [4] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/20 [5] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueTableHeaders [6] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=Category:TableHeaders On 3/31/10, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > Summary > > Summary: Replace too-simple and somewhat odd example table and > verbose text unrelated to the table element, with one example table, > derived from real world data that best demonstrates the table element. > Refocus the text specifically on the table element. > > Rationale > > In the bug[1] related to this issue, the HTML5 Editor's rationale for > not make this change was: > > > Rationale: Given how bad the current situation is regarding > authors providing > explanatory text for tables, I think we should given them as much > information > as possible, in as many places as possible. We do AT users a > disservice if we > pretend that their needs aren't important enough to include advice on > how to > best serve them in the spec. > > The current table element section provides one very small and > inadequate table example, with a great deal of prose basically telling > people what to put in text surrounding the table. None of this prose > is related to the purpose and interoperable use of the table or its > child elements, and seemingly added to the section only as a way of > justifying removing the summary attribute. I hate to use cliches, but > this seems like a true case of the tail wagging the dog. > > Throwing lots of irrelevant text at authors does not make the table > element any clearer, or ensure they use the element in the proper way. > What's needed is a good, succinct example, with a clear explanation of > the element, and the table's only unique attribute, summary. > > What people incorporate into the text surrounding an HTML table _is > not the business of the W3C HTML Working Group_. Such > over-specification only adds to the noise, and if you throw enough > noise at people, all they'll do is tune out the important bits. > > The space would be better used by providing a table listing that uses > all of the table child elements, demonstrating how the elements work > together, and then providing a screenshot of the table. By creating a > listing, people can see how the table is put together; the figure > demonstrates the visual rendering of the table. > > In addition, we shouldn't belabor what is already a well known > restriction on tables: don't use them for layout. Say it once, say it > succinctly, and then move on. Don't continue to 'pick' at the spec > reader. > > Details > > Replace the existing table element description section with the > following (replace the URL for the img element in the figure with one > local to the W3C, image can be copied, add appropriate cross-reference > links): > > The table element represents data with more than one dimension, > organized into non-empty columns and rows. It is the primary component > of the table model. > > Tables are used for data display, only, and should not be used for > layout purposes. In particular, users of accessibility tools like > screen readers are likely to find it difficult to navigate pages with > tables used for layout. > > The only unique attribute for the table element is the summary > attribute. This attribute is optional, and should only be used with > complex tables, in order to provide a visual description of the > structure of the table—making the table easier to navigate when > rendered non-visually. The summary may also include a brief > description of the purpose of the table, if such purpose is visually > apparent when viewing the entire table, but may not be apparent > traversing the table, cell by cell. An example of a complex table, > contained within a web page and with CSS styling, is shown in Listing > Table-1. Figure Table-1 is a visual rendering of the table. > > > <!DOCTYPE html> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> > <head> > <title>Example Table</title> > <style> > table > { > border: 1px solid #ccc; > border-collapse: collapse; > margin: 0 20px; > } > > td, th > { > border: 1px solid #ccc; > padding: 10px; > } > > .female > { > background-color: #ffc; > } > > tfoot > { > font-size: smaller; > } > </style> > </head> > <body> > <table summary="First row is column headers separated into year and > degree programs > (bachelor, master, graduate). Each degree program is > further split into > biology and technology fields on second line. Each > topic field is separated into > male and female graduates on third row. Years are > listed in first column."> > > <caption> > <p>Degrees in the biological and biomedical sciences compared > with degrees > in technology conferred by degree-granting institutions, by level > of > degree and sex of student: Selected years, 2002-2007. > </p> > > </caption> > > <colgroup span="1"></colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > <col class="female" /> > </colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > > <col class="female" /> > </colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > <col class="female" /> > </colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > <col class="female" /> > > </colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > <col class="female" /> > </colgroup> > <colgroup> > <col class="male" /> > <col class="female" /> > </colgroup> > > <thead> > <tr> > <th rowspan="3">Year</th><th colspan="4">Bachelor's Degrees</th> > <th colspan="4">Master's Degrees</th> > <th colspan="4">Doctor's Degrees</th> > </tr> > > <tr> > <th colspan="2">Biology</th><th colspan="2">Technology</th> > <th colspan="2">Biology</th><th colspan="2">Technology</th> > <th colspan="2">Biology</th><th colspan="2">Technology</th></tr> > <tr> > > <th>Male</th><th>Female</th><th>Male</th><th>Female</th><th>Male</th><th>Female</th> > > > <th>Male</th><th>Female</th><th>Male</th><th>Female</th><th>Male</th><th>Female</th> > </tr> > </thead> > <tbody> > <tr> > > <td>2002</td><td>22,918</td><td>37,186</td><td>41,950</td><td>15,483</td> > > > <td>2,981</td><td>4,009</td><td>13,267</td><td>6,242</td> > <td>2,804</td><td>2,289</td><td>648</td><td>168</td> > </tr> > <tr> > > <td>2003</td><td>23,248</td><td>38,261</td><td>44,585</td><td>14,903</td> > > > <td>3,227</td><td>4,430</td><td>13,868</td><td>6,275</td> > <td>2,804</td><td>2,438</td><td>709</td><td>200</td> > </tr> > <tr> > > <td>2004</td><td>24,617</td><td>39,994</td><td>42,125</td><td>11,986</td> > > > <td>3,318</td><td>4,881</td><td>13,136</td><td>5,280</td> > <td>2,845</td><td>2,733</td><td>905</td><td>214</td> > </tr> > <tr> > > <td>2005</td><td>26,651</td><td>42,527</td><td>37,705</td><td>9,775</td> > > > <td>3,654</td><td>5,027</td><td>12,470</td><td>4,585</td> > <td>2,933</td><td>2,842</td><td>1,109</td><td>307</td> > </tr> > <tr> > > <td>2006</td><td>29,951</td><td>45,200</td><td>34,342</td><td>7,828</td> > > > <td>3,568</td><td>5,179</td><td>11,985</td><td>4,247</td> > <td>3,221</td><td>3,133</td><td>1,267</td><td>328</td> > </tr> > </tbody> > > <tfoot> > > <tr> > <td colspan="13">Data from Institution of Education Sciences > National Center > for Education Statistics, derived from two tables: > <a > href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_298.asp"> > Table 298. Degrees in the biological and biomedical > sciences conferred by degree-granting > institutions, by level of degree and sex of students; > selected years, 1951-52 through 2006-07 > </a> and <a > href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_302.asp"> > Table 302. Degrees in compueter and information > sciences conferred by degree-granting > institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: > 1970–71 through > 2006–07</a></td> > </tr> > </tfoot> > </table> > </body> > </html> > > > > (image can be found at http://burningbird.net/images/table.jpg) > > Screenshot of Example complex table contained in Listing Table-1 > > > Other changes: > > For each of the table element children in the listing—tr, th, col, > colgroup, caption, tbody, thead, tfoot—reference the existing example > in Listing Table-1, and remove any other example table. One example > should be sufficient to demonstrate all of the table model elements. > > Though this is more related to Issue 32, it's still relevant: remove > the warning about the summary attribute, and remove the attribute from > the "obsolete but conforming" section. We've beat this horse so much > that it's practically glue. Time to open the gates and let it loose. > Time to move on to other things. > > Impact > > Positive Effects > > Replaces an unbelievable table example, with one that is believable, > using real data. In the spec, we should avoid contrived and made up > examples, as much as possible, as they can undermine the credibility > of the section, and distract from element(s) being demonstrated. > > The change also clarifies the section and puts the focus back on the > table element, rather than anything but. The example also demonstrates > how to use all of the table elements, as well as making a correct use > of the summary attribute. Linking all of the table child elements back > to the table element section and the listing allows people to see how > these elements are used, especially in context. > > Negative Effects > > Will take some of the editor's time to make this change. The use of > labels such as Listing Table-1 and Figure Table-1 may not fit it > within the writing style of the rest of the specification (adjust as > necessary). The listing is also a little large, though as a > demonstration of a family of elements, not overly so. > > References > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8449 > > > ------------- > > Shelley Powers > http://realtech.burningbird.net > > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 00:10:38 UTC