- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:41:38 -0500 (EST)
- To: dd@w3.org
- Cc: raman@adobe.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
to follow up on what Daniel Dardailler said: > I think 1 row/n columns table (e.g. a toolbar) fits my > description of simple layout table. > I think this kind of tables would benefit maybe from getting a > class=toolbar attached to it (or some more generic name) and > maybe some scope attribute but otherwise are fully accessible. ASG:: Three points: First: fully accessible may require that the ALT text for the buttons is present, appropriate, and dodges known limitations of commonly used browsers in presenting ALT text (sigh). Second: I think that class="toolbar" may be too broad, not too specific. In other words, perhaps "navigation" would be the right class, if it is a toolbar supporting site navigation. There is a toolbar in the outer context that includes open, mail, etc verbs that are browser functions independent of the current document and current focus in the document. Consider the common frameset composed of a "credits" frame across the top of the screen, a "navigation" frame down the left hand margin under the top, and a "current" frame filling the remaining area reaching down to the lower-right hand corner. But don't take my answer, this is the appropriate subject area for a classification study in the GL group. Third: It would be good to do a comparative analysis of different ways to implement toolbars and make them accessible. It may turn out that after weighing both author and reader concerns, that using a table is a better option than using other techniques such as a merged image with a sensitivity map. A design study comparing approaches to toolbars would be another valuable activity that I suspect fits the focus of the GL group well. -- Al Gilman
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 1997 13:46:00 UTC