- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:56:23 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFAC2DB0C9.2CD239EA-ON86256EFD.005A834E-86256EFD.005D0EB6@us.ibm.com>
John Foliot wrote: > ... need for more measurable mechanical checks, and > this to me is a perfect example of how we can possibly do this. > ... > 3) table foo has no summary attribute. In all 3 instances, > a final decision MUST be made by the developer, QA person Exactly, one of the benefits I poorly tried to identify. And remember that the next time you run the automated checker, you may want to be able to ignore option 2 - all those tables that have a null summary. In other words, you want to be able to leave a hint in your code so that the checker knows you've already examined that table and determined it is a layout table that doesn't need any more corrections. The problem with Jesper's suggestion - to remove the summary attribute altogether - is that there is not difference between tables that have been checked and determined to be valid layout tables not needing a summary attribute and those data tables needing a summary attribute. There are even more sophisticated algorithms in the checkers today that are guessing wrong and inundating the author with tons of false errors. The 3 option approach; namely "data", "layout", and "undetermined" works well with the summary="this is a data table", summary="null", and the missing summary attribute indicating "undetermined". > ... any programmatic element or attribute which speeds the "human > intervention" aspect of accessibility checking cannot be all bad in my > books... > > Another 2 cents worth Excellent point. Now, if we could only get paid 2 cents for every table that was incorrectly flagged by automated checkers. p.s. I've been told by a few that the monospaced text that is quoted in my e-mail (rich text not HTML) appears in some e-mail clients as "very small font". My e-mail client Lotus Notes sends it as "default monospaced 10", Please check to see if your e-mail client's default font is set to some undesirably small font. [by the way, this text is being sent as default san serif font 10, the quoted text above was sent as default monospaced 12 font] Regards, Phill Jenkins IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Friday, 27 August 2004 16:57:01 UTC