RE: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of resolutions from last 2 days)

Mike wrote:

<blockquote>
The reason why JAWS doesn't recognise the supplied example as a table is

because its seeing that each "part" of the table (the thead and tbody) 
has only one cell in a particular direction, and is making the mistaken 
assumption that in supplied example the table is a layout table, not a 
data table.

If you duplicate the /table/tbody/tr so the table has two rows, then 
JAWS recognises it as a table (well my copy of JAWS 5.10 does).

This is a good example of the accessibility problem of using tables for 
layout, JAWS tries to figure out whether a table is being used for 
tabular data or layout, and in this case gets it wrong.


</blockquote>

Mike, thanks for working through this. Since Inneke reports that both
Opera and Firefox handle the table correctly, and since Home Page Reader
also handles it correctly, it's clearly a JAWS bug (and I'll report it
as such) and not a useful test case for the debate about where validity
should rank in WCAG 2.0.  


John



"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Isofarro [mailto:lists@isofarro.uklinux.net] 
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 3:19 pm
To: John M Slatin
Cc: Joe Clark; WAI-GL
Subject: Re: Should validity be P1 or P2? (was RE: summary of
resolutions from last 2 days)


John M Slatin wrote:
> Joe Clark wrote:
> 
> <blockquote>
> Nobody has provided even the standard three
> *real-world* examples that I repeatedly call for and never get.
> </blockquote>
> 
> Here is a very small example in which valid code doesn't guarantee 
> accessibility. The following table validates for HTML 4.01 
> transitional. JAWS 5.0 and 6.10 do not recognize it as a table. Home 
> Page Reader 3.04 handles it properly.


The reason why JAWS doesn't recognise the supplied example as a table is

because its seeing that each "part" of the table (the thead and tbody) 
has only one cell in a particular direction, and is making the mistaken 
assumption that in supplied example the table is a layout table, not a 
data table.

If you duplicate the /table/tbody/tr so the table has two rows, then 
JAWS recognises it as a table (well my copy of JAWS 5.10 does).

This is a good example of the accessibility problem of using tables for 
layout, JAWS tries to figure out whether a table is being used for 
tabular data or layout, and in this case gets it wrong.




Mike

Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 20:32:31 UTC