RE: Table Techniques - Summary

How many times should we make a blind user listen to the word "layout"
or "layout table"?  I think it would be a burden on them and then
instead of making the site accessible, it becomes inaccessible.  I would
hate to listen to a table layout page with five nested tables like so
many sites are.  Requiring "layout" or "layout table" is way outside our
goals, IMHO.

However, a null summary would be skipped just like it is for the alt
attribute.  Nothing to read - nothing to speak.

Allowing for the absence of summary still leaves us with the habit
forming situation.

Sincerely,
Lee Roberts
President/CEO
Rose Rock Design, Inc.
(405) 321-6372
http://www.roserockdesign.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caldwell [mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:18 AM
To: 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'; 'Lee Roberts'; 'John M Slatin'; 'Matt
May'; 'Chris Ridpath'
Cc: 'WAI WCAG List'
Subject: RE: Table Techniques - Summary


Machine tests could just as easily query the author about the nature of
a table based on the existence of the <TH> element. When a machine test
encounters <TH>, it would then require that a valid summary (not a null
summary) also be present in the same way that Lee describes a machine
test needing to do the reverse based on the presence of summary. 

I don't think this trivializes the importance of summary for authors.
Instead, it reinforces the idea that using technologies according to
specification (in this case, including structural attributes only when
they have meaning and purpose that relates directly to the content) is
an important part of the process. From an authors perspective,
guidelines that would require an author who uses tables exclusively for
layout to add a semantically meaningless attribute to each and every
table on their site is far more problematic than asking them to
understand the difference between layout and data tables and include
appropriate markup.

Though there is a good deal of room for interpretation, the techniques
from WCAG 1.0 [1] seem to support an approach that would not require
include summary in layout tables:

WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 5.5 says, "Provide summaries for tables." However,
the examples and prose in the techniques document for this checkpoint
provides examples that relate only to data tables.[2]

WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 5.4 says, "If a table is used for layout, do not use
any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting." Prose for
this checkpoint implies that the inclusion of structural markup like TH
can be misleading when used in layout tables.[3]

While table summaries don't have an impact on visual formatting, they do
provide structure to tables and, in my opinion, have the same potential
to be as misleading as misuse of the TH element. 

In the WCAG 2.0 Techniques, I think the message about summary on tables
should be:

	1. Provide summaries for data tables.
	2. If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural
markup.

-Ben

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#table-summary-info 
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#tables-layout

Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 12:44:12 UTC