- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 02:06:26 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 20/02/2021 00:57, Marjanska, Martyna (SSC/SPC) wrote: > > Do we MUST use the WAI-Aria role=presentation on a Layout Table? > > Is the WAI-Aria mandatory or only advisory, best practice or else? > > I am looking for a concrete direction, a reference in WCAG, W3C, that > says clearly that layout tables must use role=presentation. > > I found many references but none says role=presentation is required. Opinions are split on this. Many will argue that using a table (and its intrinsic structure/relationships) clearly fails WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.1 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#info-and-relationships unless the table semantics are suppressed using role="presentation" or role="none". Whether not doing the latter is a big problem, or just a technicality, will depend on how complex the layout table is - only two columns and one row? yes, it's verbose in assistive technologies, but not to the point that it makes a site completely unusable; a super-complex table layout with a large number of rows/columns? probably more of an issue. (of course this assumes that other success criteria are met ... meaningful reading order, correct focus order, reflow) Others will point to https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F46 which fails due to use of specific sub-sets of table markup that is reserved for data tables when the table is not a data table. That failure technique even includes the sentence: "Although WCAG 2 does not prohibit the use of layout tables..." (But noting that techniques are not normative, and only meant to be informative, so they can sometimes contain...less than ideal advice) It's perhaps also worth keeping in mind that the hesitance with outright making layout tables fail 1.3.1 was very much a decision "of its time". When WCAG 2.0 (which introduced 1.3.1) first came out, in 2008, there was still a large number of sites using layout tables, so outright making them non-conforming was felt to be a bit too harsh. Now, in 2021, it would likely be that layout tables would be explicitly called out as being non-conformant, as there are far better and well-supported ways to control layout, compared to the arcane practice of layout tables. So, based on a modern understanding of what 1.3.1 actually asks, most auditors will likely interpret this as meaning that layout tables in general are a (mild, in most cases) failure of WCAG. And that if markup can't be easily changed, a "quick fix" is to neutralise the table-like nature of the markup using role="presentation". But if you take the informative sentence there in that one failure technique from 2008 as gospel, then you could argue that no, there is no hard requirement for not using layout tables. And using role="presentation" is more of a strongly suggested best practice. (I'd also note that positive as well as failure techniques referenced from WCAG are not exhaustive/comprehensive...they don't cover every possible scenario to give examples of every situation that is or isn't a fail). Sorry, a bit of a non-answer. For my own part, I tend to fail layout tables that still expose their table-ness. P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 20 February 2021 02:06:42 UTC