- From: Steven McCaffrey <smccaffr@MAIL.NYSED.GOV>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:11:30 -0500
- To: <kasday@acm.org>, <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>, <Robert.Neff@usmint.treas.gov>
- Cc: <298gpp@tay.ac.uk>, <W3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Len: Thanks very much for another excellent detailed response. I think I am now in complete agreement with these points (I use square brackets below). I have only one more question on columns in the case where there are categories or titles of articles on the left and a description on the right. Can the definition tag (<DL,DT,DD ) be used as in the library section of webable.com? -Steve Steven, I think you're right that we were talking about different aspects of this issue. Getting to your point that allowing tables for layout "sends the wrong message" that it's OK to mix presentation and content: I agree that's a concern. We can mitigate that problem by taking care to point out that the guidelines allow it only as a temporary, practical expedient, until browsers handle stylesheets (although "temporary" may be a long time). I think you're also suggesting that at least for now people should avoid text layout altogether, regardless of whether they are implemented by tables or CSS, since both methods are similar in terms of accessibilty: e.g. neither one is a problem for lynx, pwWebspeak, w3/emacspeak, etc., but both are a problem with screenreaders that read straight across the physical screen. One problem with this is that it sends another message: that webmasters have to fundamentally change the appearance of their pages to be accessible. We don't want to send that message either. [Yes, that's true, good point, I agree.] Also, layout does serve a function in visual browsing. For example, if a page has several long sections, you can put them side by side with their headings at the top. This allows the user to visually scan the headings and the first few lines of text of each without scrolling. Similarly, if you have a lot of short lists with short items, it's better for the items to be lined up vertically for quick scanning by eye. This in turns makes it better to put the lists side by side to avoid having a large wasted blank area on the right. So layout speeds things up for sighted users in general. It is especially good for people with severe motor disabilities for whom scrolling is a burden. Having said that, I should also point out that columnar layout can also make it less convenient even for sighted users. If a single section goes across multiple columns each of which is higher than a screen you have to go scrolling up and down just to read it. This problems comes up a lot when paper layout is simply pasted to the screen. Still, that misuse of columns aside, banning layout would send an even worse message: that you have to reduce functionality to achieve accessibility. We don't want to say that either. [I agree again.] So in balance, I think we need to allow side by side layout. On the other hand, we should encourage people to avoid it when they want maximum accessibility and when it serves no purpose. And of course avoid it when it's a hassle fo everyone, blind and sighted alike. [sounds reasonable to me.] As for your other comments: I think we're in agreement that using tables to layout still gets a double A provided it reads sensibly when linearized. That leaves triple A up for discussion. You're right of course that you need to do "reformat page" with MSIE and JAWS. I should have pointed that out. You also said that >If layout is actually used for structure then a one dimensional linearization of > a two dimensional layout is certainly not equivalent access. >Do you agree? Yes, I agree on that. True two-dimensional navigation is needed, and a lot of browser/screenreader combinations do not offer that. So I like to include a link to a spreadsheet format version of tables, so people who have access to spreadsheet programs can navigate better. I like to use comma-separated variable (.csv) format so it reads sensibly as just plain text also. See for example the HTML table at http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/reep/wanted.html and the linked csv version at http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/reep/wanted.txt The CSV version is a text version that can be read directly or loaded into standard spreadsheet programs. [sounds good, I have not checked these out yet.] Len ------- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and Department of Electrical Engineering Temple University Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122 kasday@acm.org (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY) >>> "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org> 11/08/99 09:49AM >>> Steven, I think you're right that we were talking about different aspects of this issue. Getting to your point that allowing tables for layout "sends the wrong message" that it's OK to mix presentation and content: I agree that's a concern. We can mitigate that problem by taking care to point out that the guidelines allow it only as a temporary, practical expedient, until browsers handle stylesheets (although "temporary" may be a long time). I think you're also suggesting that at least for now people should avoid text layout altogether, regardless of whether they are implemented by tables or CSS, since both methods are similar in terms of accessibilty: e.g. neither one is a problem for lynx, pwWebspeak, w3/emacspeak, etc., but both are a problem with screenreaders that read straight across the physical screen. One problem with this is that it sends another message: that webmasters have to fundamentally change the appearance of their pages to be accessible. We don't want to send that message either. Also, layout does serve a function in visual browsing. For example, if a page has several long sections, you can put them side by side with their headings at the top. This allows the user to visually scan the headings and the first few lines of text of each without scrolling. Similarly, if you have a lot of short lists with short items, it's better for the items to be lined up vertically for quick scanning by eye. This in turns makes it better to put the lists side by side to avoid having a large wasted blank area on the right. So layout speeds things up for sighted users in general. It is especially good for people with severe motor disabilities for whom scrolling is a burden. Having said that, I should also point out that columnar layout can also make it less convenient even for sighted users. If a single section goes across multiple columns each of which is higher than a screen you have to go scrolling up and down just to read it. This problems comes up a lot when paper layout is simply pasted to the screen. Still, that misuse of columns aside, banning layout would send an even worse message: that you have to reduce functionality to achieve accessibility. We don't want to say that either. So in balance, I think we need to allow side by side layout. On the other hand, we should encourage people to avoid it when they want maximum accessibility and when it serves no purpose. And of course avoid it when it's a hassle fo everyone, blind and sighted alike. As for your other comments: I think we're in agreement that using tables to layout still gets a double A provided it reads sensibly when linearized. That leaves triple A up for discussion. You're right of course that you need to do "reformat page" with MSIE and JAWS. I should have pointed that out. You also said that >If layout is actually used for structure then a one dimensional linearization of > a two dimensional layout is certainly not equivalent access. >Do you agree? Yes, I agree on that. True two-dimensional navigation is needed, and a lot of browser/screenreader combinations do not offer that. So I like to include a link to a spreadsheet format version of tables, so people who have access to spreadsheet programs can navigate better. I like to use comma-separated variable (.csv) format so it reads sensibly as just plain text also. See for example the HTML table at http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/reep/wanted.html and the linked csv version at http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/reep/wanted.txt The CSV version is a text version that can be read directly or loaded into standard spreadsheet programs. Len ------- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and Department of Electrical Engineering Temple University Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122 kasday@acm.org (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Monday, 15 November 1999 15:14:20 UTC