Re: Sadly I think I know the answer; can I fail a page that uses TABLE for layout?

Understandable question.

I prefix my feedback carefully placing the developer out of the frame, indeed, thanking them for carefully using TABLEs so they don't trip one of the fail conditions for the use of TABLES.

I do however point the issue out to decision makers who influence technology choices, so developers are not forced to use TABLEs where they do not want to.

I dislike the use of TABLEs as it is somewhat akin to laying down bear traps around your premises, and keeping track of where they are. No hard done, unless someone adds a CAPTION tag (etc) to one of them and then a fail occurs. It just seem like an avoidable accident waiting to happen.

I check Reflow (noted in my original Q), of course, I wouldn't need to if a TABLE had not been used in this way in the first place.

So, probably an over use of emo on my part ("sadFace"), but that aside, I still consider it a shame that this practice occurs, and as WCAG is my only "kudgel", I was gently going to bring it to bear to influence technology choices for the good. That was my hope.

Thank you for the steer on not beginning to think of WCAG as a weapon however, a slippery slope.

Regards,

Alan

. . . . -   . . - - -
Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
Web Developer / Développeur Web
Elections Canada / Élections Canada
alan.bristow@elections.ca<mailto:alan.bristow@elections.ca>
+1 873-416-1175
________________________________
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Sent: 04 March 2024 09:25
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Sadly I think I know the answer; can I fail a page that uses TABLE for layout?

Ce message a été envoyé par un expéditeur externe. Veuillez faire preuve de prudence et ne pas cliquer sur les liens ou ouvrir les pièces jointes à moins de reconnaître l'expéditeur et de savoir que le contenu est sûr.

This message was sent from an external sender. Please exercise caution and do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Serious question: why are you apparently keen on failing this? What
actual problem does it cause to users? This lens (looking at what the
problem is, rather than the underlying markup) is more likely to yield
better results. For instance, once you look beyond "oh no, it uses a
TABLE", you may actually find that regardless of the underlying markup,
the page has issues when it comes to Reflow, for instance.

If it doesn't cause actual problems, is the sad face more about not
having a kudgel anymore to beat developers over the head with to not
implement "bad" markup? That was never the point/intention of WCAG...

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke