- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 07:12:06 -0700
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: "rcorominas@technosite.es" <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "faulkner.steve@gmail.com" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHu5OWYauwnHBc6GPr4LuqGJV5rksbPHAhpfRmTVOpg5NXU5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
This discussion is making me think we should write a technique for using role=presentation with layout tables, rather than writing a failure for not using it. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: > Is testing with real AT enough? The following table, which also containt > nested tables, is completely ignored by JAWS 14 + Firefox / IE 8 and Safari > + VoiceOver (at least). They don't announce any table, they don't find any > table; if you try to navigate tables, they say "no tables found": > > Ramon, > I tried your table (https://awkawk.github.io/layout_table.html) with JAWS > 15/FF and got the following speech when reading line-by-line: > > Layout Table Example - Mozilla Firefox > Layout Table Example > > heading level 1 Layout Table Example > > table with 2 columns and 3 rows > heading level 1 My page > > table with 1 columns and 1 rows nesting level 1 > heading level 2 My article > > This is my article > table end nesting level 1 > > table with 1 columns and 1 rows nesting level 1 > heading level 2 My sidebar > > This is my sidebar > table end nesting level 1 > > © My Website 2014 > > That said, I like the concept of requiring a way to programmatically and > positively identify layout tables. In the past there have been suggestions > that layout tables should be marked with summary="" (I am in no way > advocating for this now, just to be clear!) and even now we are talking > about different heuristics to identify layout tables. It seems that the > big issue is that assistive technologies could implement the idea that Jon > Avila suggested (essentially "no TH = layout table") and the result would > probably be very good for not treating layout tables as tables, but I > suspect that it would also be disliked as it would also make tables that > are incorrectly coded today but correctly regarded as data tables less > accessible for the screen reader users. > > But I also go back to the questions about what does this do to the set of > pages with currently conformant tables and what is the real impact on > screen reader users. As layout tables are less ubiquitious now and with > HTML5 requiring role=presentation on layout tables, is this actually less > of a problem now? Would this be a technique that is addressing an old but > diminishing problem? > > I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but I'm sure that > we'll be talking about it more... > > AWK >
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 14:12:34 UTC