- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:21:37 +0100
- To: (wrong string) ėl-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> > Visually I feel the table needs to be indented a little > Do you mean there should be more space on the left? Yes. > > I think "re-sorted" should just be "sorted" > The re-sorted title has been suggested as being clearer for accessible reasons. I would like to have *that* explained to me! At the point we are at in the hierarchy, we aren't looking at anything sorted. If we were in a sorted list, then re-sorted would be fine, but we aren't yet. > > Move the "by" into the header, so it reads "sorted by", and then the columns > > are just thread, author, and subject. > Same as above. I can believe that one a bit more, though I doubt accessibility is really improved at this micro-level. > > The 'title's of the links are inconsistent. I would make them "March 2002 by > > date", "March 2002 by thread", "March 2002 by author", "March 2002 by > > subject". > The current titles have been suggested by Al. Al, what do you think? I > think having the word "messages" is clearer for those that have it read > by their browser. I don't care, as long as they are consistent. Currently they are: title="August 2001 messages listed by author" title="August 2001 threads of discussion" title="August 2001 messages listed by subject" > === > I hadn't noticed the empty row, and I like your suggestion of 2 tbody. > Regarding visual appearance, I hope this can be handled through CSS. I had hoped that too. But I couldn't get it to work. That was what I meant with my comment: > Hmm neither Opera nor > Netscape 6 seem to do margins or borders on <tbody>. That still needs work. Steven
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 07:21:23 UTC