- From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:46:45 -0500
- To: "'Ben Caldwell'" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Matt May'" <mcmay@w3.org>, "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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