- From: Matt Heard <matt-heard@otiose.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:26:33 -0500
- To: public-pfwg-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <1b18fcd0807121026t14a83832kb68b532ba02bd322@mail.gmail.com>
I really, really like the work that's been done on ARIA so far, and I think it's going to make a huge impact on accessibility. To me, the best part about it is that it doesn't seem to require applications to be re-written to take advantage of ARIA: for the most part it looks like I just "decorate" existing markup with the new ARIA attributes and I'm done. There are a lot of web applications that (for one reason or another) use tables to lay out their interface. I was thinking specifically of SharePoint when I started out, but I just inspected GMail's DOM, and sure enough, it's tables all the way down. Flickr seems to be structured the same way. Have you considered defining something like a "layout" role that could be used for <table> tags that don't contain tabular data? This would tell screen readers which tables should really be read out as tables, and which ones should be ignored. If not, is there something already written into the ARIA draft that would accomplish the same thing? I've heard a whole lot of campfire horror stories encouraging me to always use semantic markup and never use tables for layout; most of these center around the idea that screen readers announce tables as they read through the page, interrupting the content and making everything take longer. If the tables-for-layout problem really is as bad as people make it out to be, and a simple fix like a "layout" role really could improve the situation, then it seems like it's worth pursuing.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 00:32:35 UTC