W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: WCAG Checkpoint 5.3

From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:26:27 +0100
Message-ID: <00a101c33c9e$f4640200$8e33f7c2@laptop>
To: "Scarlett Julian \(ED\)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: WCAG Checkpoint 5.3

> > From: Isofarro [mailto:w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net]
> > From: "Pablo Enríquez" <lurgee92@yahoo.es>
> > Subject: WCAG Checkpoint 5.3
> >
> > > I've read this and WAI Techniques many times and I
> > > think the majority of tables on the web are readable
> > > and understandable line by line.
> >
> > There is a slightly weighted random chance that this can happen.
> I'm interested at how you arrive at that statement.

Wiio's law: Human communication usually fails except by accident.

> Has work been
> carried out into the probability of layout tables making sense when
> linearised?

Not to my knowledge. I let my feelings about nested tables used for
the purpose of layout get the better of me.

> Effectively what you are saying is that if web designers/developers
> are left to do whatever they want in terms of page layout then more
> often than not they will come up with an accessible tabular layout
> by accident. Monkey? Typewriters? Shakespeare? ;-)

Yes, although it sounds a bit cynical, that seems to cover my opinion on the

Now if Shakespeare had written a sonnet consisting entirely of the letter S,
then I think one monkey is starting to show promise:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/devon/3013959.stm (or
/devon/3013959 for the readable version).


Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 07:24:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC