- From: don raikes <don.raikes@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:59:30 -0700
- To: "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Responding to the question of how much headers= is used, Oracle's web-based solutions all use the headers= attribute and have since roughly 2001/2002. In fact that has been one of our requirements for making our software section 508 compliant. > -----Original Message----- > From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Laura Carlson > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:06 PM > To: wai-xtech@w3.org > Subject: Re: headers attribute debate > > > > For your information: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > Subject: Re: headers attribute (was Re: Form elements) > > On May 31, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Laura Carlson wrote: > > > These questions are relevant not only to the headers > debate, but also > > to the 'Moving forward' thread regarding reaching consensus > and design > > principles/reviewing questions. > > > > Ben Boyle wrote [1]: > > > >> There seem enough cases here to warrant it's continued > part in HTML. > > > > Anne van Kesteren wrote [2]: > > > >> The arguments for removing it are that the feature isn't > widely used > > > > Thomas Broyer wrote [3]: > > > >> it has been proven that: headers= isn't used that much in the wild > > > > I asked about quantity of cases before [4] and didn't get a > response. > > But I'll ask again. What is number of cases that proves a feature > > should be included or excluded from the spec? Also how is > that number > > derived? What factors are taken into consideration? > > > > Thanks, > > Laura > > > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/1262.html > > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/1249.html > > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/1259.html > > [4] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/1144.html > > I don't think there's a hard and fast number - it depends to some > extent on the nature of the feature. There are also two tests to meet: > > 1) Should it be required for implementations to support a given > feature? For pre-existing constructs (from past specs or in existing > browsers), this is based almost entirely on frequency of use, and > whether support affects interoperability. > > 2) Should it be allowed for use in conforming documents? This brings > additional considerations into the picture. In general, only > constructs with a valid use case should be allowed in conforming > documents. Those who are against including headers="" would argue > that nearly all the times you'd consider using it, scope="" will be > easier and less error-prone, so we should recommend that as a better > practice for authors. However, the counterbalance is that we want > authors to be able to make documents that degrade gracefully in > existing user agents without needlessly putting their documents out > of conformance. > > So the key questions, in my opinion, are: > > 1) How much content is out there that uses headers="" correctly? Not > just tutorials but actual live web sites that use it on their table > markup. Bonus points if they use it correctly. > > 2) It's been stated that existing screen readers have better support > for headers="" than scope="". Can we quantify this? What are the most > popular screen readers and what is their approximate market share? > What is the user experience in each for a table marked up with > scope="", a table marked up with headers="", and a table that is not > annotated at all? > > For features that are primarily handled by browsers rather than > assistive technologies, these are the kinds of questions we > investigate. The current use share breakdown is approximately 80% IE, > 15% Firefox, 5% Safari, 1% Opera. Other browsers are all > significantly below 0.1%. Most people have all of these browsers > readily available so they can test things. So we tend to have good > information about how various constructs work in the browsers > actually used by users. > > But I'd guess most of us don't even know what the top screen readers > are, and we certainly don't have access to do extensive testing. So > we'll need help gathering this kind of information. > > Regards, > Maciej > > ---------- End Forwarded message ---------- > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 20:00:30 UTC