- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 09:07:15 +0100
- To: "Charles (Chuck) Oppermann" <chuckop@microsoft.com>
- cc: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Nothing precludes the aid to do a better job at Table linearization when the UA does a poor job at it. It's not a either/or UA/Aid situation, so I see no disadvantage for the end-user in having the UA giving it a try in the first place. Is there a down side ? (like promoting poor linearization done by UA ?) > I think you are misunderstanding my position. We don't want tables > linearized - we expose the structure of tables and allow accessibility aids > to decide for themselves how to represent the table to the user. The > advantage is that each aid can optimize the presentation to their particular > users. The disadvantage is that the accessibility aid has to implement the > feature. > Finally, the user agent itself can unroll the table, using an internal > script or other code or by merely changing the rules by which is displays > tables. The advantage of this method is that accessibility's aids have to > do no work. The disadvantage is that each user agent could do it > differently and that the display is not optimized to a particular set of > users.
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 1998 03:07:26 UTC