- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:23:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
No it doesn't. If the linearised version does not make sense then the table does not pass the checkpoint. The example you cite is a classic case of a linearised version that does not make sense. (Although "linearised" is a fairly woolly term...) Charles McCN On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: > >WCAG says > >5.3 Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when >linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an >alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2] > >This means that someone could use tables for layout in way that the page >makes no sense and is not usable by any of todays user agents... but still >get an A conformance rating, because this is only priority 2. > >For example, if there's a form laid out in a table with field labels on >the top row and corresponding fields on the bottom row. > >I think the checkpoint needs to be Priority 1. > >Len
Received on Saturday, 11 March 2000 12:23:31 UTC