- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 12:43:05 -0800 (PST)
- To: kasday@acm.org, phoenixl@netcom.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, Len I believe that the thread on tables may not be finished yet. The issue of tables has a lot to do with positioning text and also with color backgrounds. For example, if there is a left column index and a main column with header and body, the column index is read first. Nested tables for alinging blocks of colors in certain ways in a column is another problem. Because there can be so many ways to use areas of color on a web page to create a certain design effect, I would be careful not to make the assumption that linearization is always readily achievable, e.g.: H T W O R G (For screen reader users, this is the word "GROWTH" with the letters starting at the lower left corner and going towards the upper right.) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z (This is a Z, made up of a lot of Z's.) I'm not saying that default page should be impossible to use, but that in a trade-off between visual appearance and visual accessibility, it will be hard for designers to give up visual appearance. Scott > > OK, we agree that giving a choice is desirable... although we might differ > on how desirable. I'd also agree that we can't ignore how much effort it > will be for a webmaster. > > As for your assertion that > > >layouts using tables probably won't transform very easily into a more > >linearized form. > > Another thread just popped up on on this list re problems with tables and > other folks are discussing various experiences with tables. We're seeing > different view there. > > My view is that it's not hard to avoid the table linearizing as gibberish, > although you do have to use a few tricks. For example, if you want a > layout with several text fields in a row and you want the names on top of > the text fields, you can't just put names in a row above the text fields. > If you did that a screen reader would read all the names and then present > all the fields. A real mess. But in this case you can easily put each name > and text field in their own table cell, with a break <BR> in between. That > gets the reading order correct. > > Of course, I'm assuming that the browser or browser screenreader is reads > the table in the order it appears in the HTML. This is true of text or > voice browsers like lynx, pwwebspeak, emacs/w3, and home page reader, as > well as graphical browsers-screenreader combinations which linearize > tables, like internet explorer and jaws with the reformat command. > > Now, that doesn't always put the items in the order that yields maximal > efficiency. In fact, it can be rather messy... e.g. users hear the main > menu links, the title, some of the links again (when they are featured in a > center splash image) etc. I agree that it could be made better on a > separate page with different format. > > So yes, I've said it before and I'll say it again, would indeed be valuable > to have alternative versions of the page which are easier to read in an > efficient manner. > > But my point is that I still feel that even the default page should at > least avoid gibberish and not be completely impossible to use. > > Is there an example you can give where it's really tough to avoid > gibberish... an example that would come up commonly? > > Or if anyone else out there has a good example please post it up on the list. > > Len
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 1999 15:43:11 UTC