W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Evaluating Web sites: Lynx and data tables

From: <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:57:48 +1000
To: jmdamour@videotron.ca
Cc: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF76A94071.503F97B5-ONCA256BCA.00049F90@domino.bigpond.com>


I, like Jean-Marie, do not use Lynx, but rather Opera and/or WAVE to test
for table linearity and reading order. However, happy to leave the Lynx
reference in as it does provide an alternative tool. Maybe we should
reference the other options here also?

While HPR is a good testing tool too, the table navigation/interogation
features are probably beyond the simple (preliminary review) level of
knowledge that we should expect.

In fact, on reflection, maybe referencing a specific checkpoint (5.3) is
going in to too much detail for the preliminary review?

Maybe where we are heading is in the Conformance review providing advice as
to which tools can be used for which checkpoints, or vice-versa. Any


                      D'Amour"                 To:      Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>                                 
                      <jmdamour@videot         cc:      w3c-wai-eo@w3.org                                                      
                      ron.ca>                  Subject: Re: Evaluating Web sites: Lynx  and data tables                        
                      Sent by:                                                                                                 
                      31-05-02 01:48                                                                                           

Hello Chuck,

I agree with your Note.

For now, the best tool to test complex tables in the real world is Home
Page Reader, except for axis.

Personnaly, I ceased to use Lynx for testing since Opera 6. I can made all
tests with Opera or HPR. I have no objection to maintain Lynx in the
document but i don't see how we can recommand a different usage for the
comprehensive evaluation.


Jean-Marie D'Amour

A 11:08 2002-05-30, Chuck Letourneau a écrit :
>This change log entry is clipped from
>and refers to the use of LYNX
>- start of clipping -
>*       explain more about what to look for in code when reviewing data
>tables in lynx [20011030]
>         [20020426] add a Note in #2, "don't use lynx on data tables."
> (provide a link to somewhere where it's defined)
>- end of clipping -
>I think that simply stating, "don't use lynx on data tables" is not the
>solution to this change request.
>The "problem" with using Lynx to evaluate the accessibility of data tables

>arises because it does not (in the release I use) expose accessible markup

>that an author may have added (i.e. headers, id, scope, etc.) that
>(theoretically) make the table accessible to web agents that support such
>On the other hand, LYNX can still be used to show whether an author has
>designed a table to make sense when linearized.
>Therefore I propose that something like the following note be added to
>both the preliminary and comprehensive sections (links to checkpoints
>could be added):
>- start of note -
>NOTE: LYNX cannot be used to verify compliance with WCAG Priority 1
>checkpoints 5.1 and 5.2 .   To do so, use a Web agent or assistive tool
>that can interpret advanced table markup.  If such a tool is not
>available, manually inspect the source code to determine if advanced table

>markup has been used.  Then, when a suitable tool becomes available,
>revisit the tables to ensure that the markup is reporting properly.  LYNX
>can, however, be used to verify compliance with WCAG Priority 2 checkpoint

>- end of note -
>Comment 1:  I am not certain that any tools fully (or consistently)
>support all advanced table mark up yet.  Thus it is doubtful whether even
>visual inspection of code is entirely useful since we are essentially
>guessing how the markup might be interpreted by some future tool.  This is

>an enduring problem for people trying to achieve Double-A.
>Comment 2: All this begs another question: should we distinguish between
>how we recommend the use of LYNX in a preliminary review and in a
>comprehensive review?
>Discussion would be appreciated.
>Chuck Letourneau
>Starling Access Services
>"Access A World Of Possibility"

Jean-Marie D'Amour M.Éd.
CAMO pour personnes handicapées
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 21:00:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:32 UTC