- 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