Re: Deliverable for Action 72 @headers

James Graham wrote:
> The
> strongest way to make the case that these issues need to be addressed is
> to go away and implement the current spec and show how it doesn't work

> Findings from headers/id Testing (Bug 5822):

> Headers/id allowed the assistive technology combinations tested to
> successfully announce relationships 5 out of 6 times.
> Scope failed 6 out of 6 times. The failure of support for scope means
> that scope is currently not an effective option.
> Although it is widely known that scope isn't well supported by
> assistive technology [1 2 3 4 5], its use is strongly recommend,
> because it's easy to author, works with simpler data tables, and
> support is likely to improve.

Best Regards,

Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 20:15:06 UTC