- From: Wayne Crotts <wcrotts@arches.uga.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 11:13:40 -0500
- To: "WAI Interest Group Emailing List" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Take this anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt, but still it illustrates Kynn's point that the typical html writer thinks as to using tables for layout. A month ago, I hosted a workshop on web accessibility at a state level computer conference. I was surprised (and alarmed) at the number of people present that were writing and even implementing web design courses (for WebCT, other) that had never heard of the accessibility issue. However, I was pleased that upon hearing about the issue, that folks were genuinely concerned and realized that accessibility was important. Many stayed after the workshop was over to get more information, talk about their specific circumstances, etc.. . . . So far so good-- however-- the parts about tables they could not understand. One, many saw this a needless default standard, considering that using tables did not mean automatically the page was not accessible. One can write accessible linear tables so why would there be concern if used for layout? Secondly, one of them pointed out that style sheets have a similar compatibility issue as tables. Fortunately, I didn't throw in any cutting remarks that this is only a 'decoration' issue. I am sure that in this workshop case that the whole accessibility issue would have been tossed out of the window, if such rhetoric would have been used. In essence, until style sheets are fully implemented, tables is a reliable way for html writers to control the layout of their pages. Demands on html writers are that layout control is to be expected. For us to dismiss these demands as non-important because they don't fit snuggly into our specific needs for accessibility is silly and arrogant. This is especially true because we cannot provide an alternative. Style sheets are coming but have the compatibility issues that tables have as far as browsers go. Therefore, we are asking the html writer to give up a needed function because it 'MAY' be inaccessible. What a joke. In essence, they were very convinced and sold on the accessibility idea except for tables which they felt they had compelling reasons to disagree. Quite frankly, a 'no tables for layout' proved to be a weak argument. I don't mean to entice flames here. I realize that it is much more complicated to describe how not to use tables than to simply say 'don't use tables for layout purposes.' But one can have an accessible page where tables are used for layout --so why automatically forbid it??? It comes down to what Kynn stated previously -- the typical web writer is not going to give up using tables for layout, nor can we provide convincing reasons to do so. Sure we can point to example after example of their inappropriate use, but those on the other side can demonstrate web sites using tables for layout that do not obstruct accessibility. So: To question if Kynn is on the 'same side' misses the boat. Kynn was reporting a reality on a weak point in our argument. If that makes him not on the 'same side', well I guess that you should include me as well. Wayne Wayne Crotts Information/Systems Institute on Human Development and Disability A University Affiliated Program The University of Georgia > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of David Poehlman > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 7:15 AM > To: Gregory J. Rosmaita > Cc: webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net; WAI Interest Group Emailing List > Subject: Re: How Much Of A Problem Are Tables Used for Design? > > > just weighing in here. we've learned from Gregory and it has been >
Received on Thursday, 18 November 1999 12:24:41 UTC