RE: Is bobby correct?

Hi Daniel,
If you are going to use tables for layout only, include the summary but
leave the value blank. Eg. summary=""

I dont see any point in making a user listen (if using a screen reader) to
all instances of all tables that merely say "layout table", this just
prolongs the time a user will have to listen to the page with no extra
benefit. If this value is blank Screen Readers, in particular JAWS, should
ignore the tag completely.

Of course if your table holds data or would benefit from an explanation,
then go ahead and use the 'summary' tag with a useful description.

I am only talking about Screen Readers here, not any other form of assistive
technology. Using blank summary tags will get is past the Bobby test.

Hope this helps?

Regards
Matt
matthew@ogston.com
http://www.ogston.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Daniel Hillier [SMTP:DHillier@VisionICT.com]
> Sent:	19 September 2002 10:59
> To:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject:	Is bobby correct?
> 
> Hi
>  
> I just test one of my site using Watchfire's bobby tool and under priority
> 3 Accessibility I was told that my site does not meet the requirements for
> Bobby AAA Approved status as I have not provide a Summary for my table.
>  
> The table in question is just there for layout purposes and not data as I
> understood the guild lines you only need to use summary for data tables.
>  
> Is this correct?
>  
> Thanks for your help.
>  
> Daniel Hillier
This e-mail and any attached files are intended solely for the named
addressee only. It may contain information that is confidential, legally
privileged and protected by copyright. Unless you are the named addressee
(or authorised to receive on behalf of the addressee) you may not copy, use
or disclose its contents to anyone else. If you received this e-mail in
error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your
system. We make every effort to keep our network free from viruses although
we can take no responsibility for any computer virus which may be
transferred by way of this e-mail.

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 07:04:23 UTC