W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: HTML5 DL Element vs. WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 18:32:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VnU6ogPEYGAUhEifZ-P8VQs0pfXHDwPsKwTqA6qc0hw7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan Heck <jan@id4theweb.com>
Cc: Jan Eric Hellbusch <hellbusch@2bweb.de>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Jan,

do we continue to use the correct element and let the
> screen reader makers know about the issues?
>

In this case I think this is the correct course of action, definition lists
have been in HTML since 1997 [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32.html#dl

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 7 February 2014 18:20, Jan Heck <jan@id4theweb.com> wrote:

> I guess my question is this: Is it really "bad web design" to use the DL,
> DT, and DD elements exactly as they were intended to be used (in the case
> of creating a glossary, for example, or something reasonably similar) just
> because screen readers aren't implementing it correctly? Put another way,
> do we stop using the correct element for the job just because of poor
> implementation, or do we continue to use the correct element and let the
> screen reader makers know about the issues?
>
>
> On 2/7/14 12:24 AM, "Jan Eric Hellbusch" <hellbusch@2bweb.de> wrote:
>
> >Thanks, Ramón,
> >
> >> Definition lists are not accessibility supported. Period.
> >
> >As a screen reader user I have always thought of definition lists as bad
> >web
> >design. I use JAWS and of course it is the way JAWS deals with definition
> >lists. My usual way of navigating through content ist with Ctrl+arrow keys
> >and when it komes to definition lists, JAWS will join the DD with the
> >following DT and not the DT with its following DDs. I am running JAWS 13
> >with IE11 here and it is still that way.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> I admit that tables might not be the best solution and that they look
> >> "ugly" in terms of semantics, but they are quite more accessibility
> >> supported and far more easy to understand. Even simple <ul> or <ol>
> >> lists have better support; at least the screen readers announce a
> >> "nesting level" that conveys an extra piece of "relationship".
> >
> >You get the nesting levels with DL as well.
> >
> >Tables are a lot easier to use in a screen reader than DL for 2 column
> >data.
> >In some situations it might be semantically prettier to use DL, but what
> >counts is how users can deal with code.
> >
> >Jan
> >
> >
> >--
> >Jan Eric Hellbusch
> >Tel.: +49 (231) 33005825 oder +49 (163) 3369925
> >Accessibility-Beratung: http://2bweb.de
> >Blog: www.chemnitzer-14.de
> >Bücher, Artikel: www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 18:34:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC