- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't think this can rate a P1. User Agents should not be playing a guessing game - tables used for layout are a temporary hack which may require users to play a guessing game while user agents do not support proper presentation mechanisms. It seems unlikely to me that the presence or absence of TH is a make or break issue for accessibility - it is only there to make a guess more educated in any case. Charles McCathieNevile On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote: I would like to see a stronger statement of Priority 1 for proper use of TD and TH. Based on the current Web Content guidelines this is really the only information currently available to user agents for determining whether a table is being used for layout or tabular data. Without this information user agents need to play a guessing game on what a table is being used for. Jon At 11:13 AM 4/17/99 +1000, Jason White wrote: >I concur with Charles' proposal, with the following reservations: > >1. The non-use of TH to convey presentational effects should have a >priority 2 rating, as it provides a means whereby user agents can reliably >distinguish data tables from layout tables, and also encourages the proper >use of structural markup. > >2. I would prefer the condition that tables be used for layout only until >style sheet positioning is adequately supported, to be explicitly stated >in the checkpoint, thus making it time dependent. > >Eric's proposal is to similar effect. I would emphasize however that the >inclusion of proper structural markup is a priority 2 requirement. The >inability to determine the structure of a document (headings, lists, >paragraphs, etc.) is a major access barrier, as it means that the said >structure will be evident in a visual setting (due to the presentational >markup comprised by the layout tables) but but not in an auditory or >braille setting; in this fundamentally undermines the concept of equal >access to the document. Access (at more than the minimum threshhold level >established by the "A" rating) involves access not only to the text, but >also to the structural and semantic distinctions communicated by the >formatting. Thus, the structural markup is needed, at a priority 2 level, >to ensure that appropriate auditory/braille/handheld-device formatting can >be provided by the user agent, with the aid, where possible, of style >sheets. > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: 217-244-5870 Fax: 217-333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 13:17:15 UTC