- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:57:50 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I am not making a statement supporting tables for layout. I am just saying that if tables are being used for layout (and they will be whether you, I or the W3C likes it or not) that it would help if the guidelines made a strong statement on not using TH in layout tables. Assistive technologies can then use this information to offer a better rendering of the information in the table. My recommendation is not based on any opinion of of whether to use tables for layout or not, I just want UA to have better information on which to make decisions on rendering. Jon At 04:06 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >I don't think that defining a use of TH and TD that supports the abuse of >tables will make the difference between pages being accessible or not >accessible. I am not certain whether the presence of structural markup >such as TH even constitutes a major accessibility barrier. It is simply >bad authoring practise. The definitions of priorities have been applied >strictly and consistently, and I feel that allows us to defend the >guidelines piece by piece with ease, and that helps us defend the whole >document. Although it means I have to live with lower priorities for >eradicating some things I think are very bad practise, it is a trade I in >which I think we have got the good deal. > >Charles McCN > >On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Response to CMN by JRG: > Proper use of the TD and TH elements is the only concrete guidence that the > Web Content guidelines are currently providing for discriminating table > usage. Tables will continue to be used for layout for a long time and I > would like to strengthen the statement to a P1 to give it a higher level of > priority to authors. > Jon > > > At 01:17 PM 4/20/99 -0400, you wrote: > >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 > > > 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 > 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
Received on Tuesday, 20 April 1999 18:01:16 UTC