RE: [wbs] response to 'Approval of Changes after Thorough Review'

Hey Donal,\

Thanks for commenting, please see my comment below as Daniel:

---

> >  * [Module 4] [Topic Table Summaries and Descriptions] [3rd bullet] --
> > Qualified teaching ideas about the summary element: "[...] Emphasize
> > that it is obsolete according to the HTML5 specification and should,
> > therefore, be used with caution. [...]"
> Comments:
> Whilst I generally agree with these additions I feel that some more thought needs to go into the recommendations in respect of bullet-point
> 1 above.
> If the summary is obsolete, should it be included at all?  If we are noting its obsolescence, should the bullet point then also include
> recommendations for its replacement with newer techniques.

Daniel: When we went through the module on images and graphics, the `longdesc` attribute was discussed as it is also obsolete. We decided we wanted to keep it even if it is obsolete but qualify its scope carefully, it is particularly meaningful in terms of accessibility. This is why the `summary` is also kept. Also developers may come across an old environment they need to fix, and these attributes, while not recommended for newer environments, may be useful for interim repair strategies.

I have reworded this teaching idea as follows to make clearer that techniques such as `figure` and `figcaption`, `aria-label`, or `aria-labelledby` are preferred:
"Explain the use of the attribute `summary` to provide people using a screen reader with detailed information about the structure of complex tables. Emphasize that it is obsolete according to the HTML5 specification. Its usage is only advisable for fallback purposes. Newer techniques (discussed above on this topic) are recommended. [...]"

Does this better reflect the general preference for newer techniques?

--

Daniel Montalvo

Accessibility Education and Training Specialist
W3C/WAI

Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2020 12:22:46 UTC