- From: Bob Regan <bregan@macromedia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 07:18:39 -0700
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: <Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com>, "Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Is anyone actively raising issues with Freedom Scientific? Is there Freedom Scientific rep on WCAG? It seems pretty cavalier to just assume you will be able to deliver a list of issues to them at the end of this process. The result is not likely to be that JAWS and content work better together. There is a spirit of collaboration missing. Did anyone look into the thinking that went into that change? Was it deliberate or an oversight? Is it easy for them to make a change or should the guidelines reflect what is possible today? You leap right to a conclusion here that, as a vendor, frightens me. It is easy for Roberto to make blanket assumptions about what is right, broken and illogical. However, such assumptions are not likely to consistently produce the outcomes we are looking for. Cheers, Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - bob regan | macromedia | 415.832.5305 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:07 PM To: Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: [techs] Table Summary Tests (111, 112, 113, 114, 203) We need to develop wcag that are for *all* disabilities, and not be vendor-specific. If it's a Jaws problem, ask to fix it to them, and not that w3c should fix wcag guidelines. (as for valid code...) ----- Messaggio originale ----- Da: "Mirabella, Mathew J"<Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com> Inviato: 18/08/05 4.40.34 A: "w3c-wai-gl list"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Oggetto: [techs] Table Summary Tests (111, 112, 113, 114, 203) >> but with JAWS the user can jump directly to any table on the page by >> pressing the letter "t". If the table has a <caption> element, JAWS >> speaks the caption; it will also speak the summary if it's present. >> >> Pressing the "t" would cause JAWS to bypass the H<x> element in the >> example above. > Thank you for documenting another way in which Jaws is a broken user > agent. I'm sure the Working Group will custom-craft its techniques to > accommodate exactly what Jaws does in this instance. I agree that Jaws is far from perfect, especially considering that every so called improved new version of this same program seems to change the way it behaves with web content, and as such causes problems, for Real people etc. However, in an example where you have an hx element above a table, then a caption in a table, What is inherently wrong with Jaws doing something like moving to the table (thus skipping the hx) when the user presses t? h/shift-h in jaws moves Between the headings, t/shift-t moves between the tables. Why should jaws consider An hx to be any part of the table just because it appears above the table? For all we know, the hx could be a section heading in the page that just happens to be followed by a table. If we want to suggest that an hx just above a table is suficient to actually link that Table to that hx as explicitly as, for example, label with form control, then we are starting to expect user agents and assistive technologies to make decision about the linkages Between different things on a page due to nothing more than screen or code proximity. I hope People can see the problems inherent in this. So how can you link a table to a header that is above it... Is there a for/id linkage that can be made? No... So my example shows the inclusion of an hx inside the caption.... Which is not Given just for jaws compatibility, but because it seems to be a sensible way to resolve The linkage issue in an explicit way in the code... Which is what we are seeking. So in the example where the hx is above the table with caption, Jaws is probably not really Doing the wrong thing. That's not to say that Jaws never does the wrong thing by the way. [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2005 14:19:08 UTC