- From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:53:21 -0700
- To: "'Michael Cooper'" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, "'WAI GL \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I concur with John's statement that all tables should have summary tags. Rationale: 1) It is much easier to test for the summary attribute than for the machine to determine if the table is a layout table rather than a data table. 2) Programmers will become acclimated to the requirement and will begin to use it. 3) Null summaries will allow the programmer to use the summary without the use of extraneous information on layout tables. 4) Data tables would become testable for a non-null summary upon the use of header, scope, and axis. 5) A null summary would then expect to not see the use of header, scope, and axis in the table coding. Any use of header, scope, or axis with a null summary would be easily identifiable as an error with machine testers. Lee -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cooper Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:06 AM To: WAI GL (E-mail) Subject: [#293] Summary for tables The old summary bugaboo. We need to resolve this in order to close the table discussions. What should requirements be for "summary" attribute on data and layout tables? Possible requirements are don't provide, provide null, provide a genuine summary, or do whatever seems best for the situation. As a starting proposal I suggest that layout tables be required to have no summary, and data tables be required to have a non-null summary. This is by no means generally accepted and needs discussion. Michael Michael Cooper Accessibility Project Manager Watchfire 1 Hines Rd Kanata, ON K2K 3C7 Canada +1 613 599 3888 x4019 http://bobby.watchfire.com/
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 17:53:34 UTC