- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:36:02 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Hi Anne, > I searched the mailing list for summary and cowpath/cow path and couldn't > find any email where someone said the reason summary has not been included > is the result of paving a cowpath. There are a couple of ancillary explicit references in the html-public archive regarding table summary and cowpaths. But are absolutely right, Anne, cowpaths were referred to more implicitly in that specific accessibility debate. People haven’t said "cowpaths" that much out loud in that debate but they have said repeatedly that pretty much all screen readers support @summary [1], including older versions which they said means there is already an audience of assistive technology users out there who can use it, today. The cowpath principle has been argued more explicitly in other debates but implicitly it is usually always there. > I think one of the primary arguments was that summary would do more harm > than good because it is so often used incorrectly. Those are two of the arguments why summary should not be provided. Points #4 and #8 in the Wiki try to say that [2]. Should they be phrased differently? Did I miss any other rationale for that side of the argument? Rationale for why a table summary mechanism should be provided in HTML5 is also in the Wiki [3]. > Multiple independent surveys of Web content found this. Those are also listed in the Wiki [3]. Did I miss any? Thanks. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-efb5f42844e374dbc45ffe4dadd74ea8a29d54bf [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-2046cf917919f6d17e0ee7990238686702c17523 [3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-222af24a2b1dcdc3afe5e3036551b70f99cf232c [4] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE#head-46654c194f99ed943eb26573a6506818962826ee -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 14:24:17 UTC