Re: Table Techniques - Summary

> Does the subject line mean "summary of table techniques" or...
>
I'll try to make subject lines less ambiguous in the future.

> summary="" and an absent summary are so similar that the former should not
> be prohibited.
>
I've heard that some screen readers will pause when presented with a null
attribute value such as this.

We're trying to keep the rules as simple as possible ("don't use summaries
on layout tables") and I don't think it helps anyone to add the qualifier
that null summaries are OK. Can you think of an example where a null summary
on a layout table is helpful?

> Why every single data table? What if it's a 2x2-cell table that perfectly
> explicates itself? Why "make the author 'jump through hoops'"?
>
Do users want a short summary on a data table such as this? Something like
"simple data table". We're still looking for more input?

> Explain how WAI can require an attribute that
> the W3C (X)HTML spec itself does not require.
>
My belief is that the WAI is supposed to ask for additional information that
is not required by other formal specifications.

> > If the summary is less than 20 characters then it is suspicious.
>
Should say "20 characters [English]".

> Glad to see this has all reached the stage of "resolution." Too bad it
> stinks.
>
The first line of the message stated that we had reached a resolution on
layout table summaries. The rest of the message dealing with data table
summaries is still just proposed.

Our resolution means the decision will likely go into the techniques working
draft document. There's still plenty of time for public review and scrutiny
before the techniques become a W3C recommendation.

Kind Regards,
Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
To: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Table Techniques - Summary


>
> Does the subject line mean "summary of table techniques" or "table
> techniques for the summary attribute"? Quick, LD-boosters-- make subject
> lines like this illegal on the Web!
>
> > Layout tables must not have a summary (not even a NULL summary). This
> > reverses our earlier decision that layout tables may have a summary.
> >
> > The rationale behind the no summary rule is:
> > - layout tables should not be used (use CSS)
>
> As long as HTML4 and XHTML 1.0 are W3C recommendations, people can use
> tables for layout if they want. You don't have to like them, but they *are
> not prohibited for layout*. The spec merely says "Tables should not be
> used purely as a means to lay[ ]out document content as this may present
> problems when rendering to non-visual media." "Should not" does not mean
> "must not," and I challenge advocates of all-CSS-all-the-time design to
> provide a list of current "non-visual media" that cannot handle layout
> tables.
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#h-11.1>
>
> CSS layouts are better in myriad ways and tremendously desirable, but
> tables are not prohibited, nor should they be. WAI is not a higher power
> than the W3C's own HTML working group.
>
> > - it appears that layout tables will be deprecated in XHTML2
>
> XHTML2 is even farther away from ratification than WCAG 2 and has no
> bearing on our deliberations here.
>
> > - the function of the layout table summary can be better expressed
elsewhere
>
> Again with the misconception that anyone gives a damn that the table, an
> underlying HTML structure invisible to the visitor, is used for layout.
> You don't need to "express" the "function of the... summary" at all. Just
> use your table for layout. Don't get all meta on us.
>
> > - we should not require a NULL summary just to make the author "jump
through
> > hoops"
>
> That isn't much a hoop to jump through. This esteemed working group
> separately and elsewhere tentatively proposes that authors must police how
> many nouns come in a row and add vowel markings to Hebrew, as though we
> were children or something. summary="" is *nothing*. It's trivial.
>
> summary="" and an absent summary are so similar that the former should not
> be prohibited.
>
> > Data tables must have a valid summary.
>
> Why every single data table? What if it's a 2x2-cell table that perfectly
> explicates itself? Why "make the author 'jump through hoops'"?
>
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#adef-summary>
>
> summary is an *optional* attribute in HTML. If you leave it out, your
> table will still validate. Explain how WAI can require an attribute that
> the W3C (X)HTML spec itself does not require.
>
> > Proposed description of a valid summary:
> > The summary must describe the relationship between cells.
>
> The myriad table *headers* do that. Yet again the WAI WCAG WG (take your
> pick) wants the entire Web turned into words words words, except inasmuch
> as words are prohibited or tightly regulated because a learning-disabled
> person may find them confusing at some unspecified future date.
>
> WAI (sic) has a poor record in explicating the true requirements for table
> accessibility, and this is not making things better.
>
> > The summary does not have a maximum length.
>
> The (X)HTML spec doesn't say there is one, so the statement above is
> meaningless.
>
> > The summary must not contain placeholder text.
>
> True. Not even a space character.
>
> > If the summary is less than 20 characters then it is suspicious.
>
> That's very amusing. You realize how compact Chinese and Japanese can be,
> right?
>
> Here we go again with telling people how to write.
>
> > Can the summary just link to another document (kinda like a longdesc)?
>
> No. Like alt, it cannot contain markup. WAI WCAG WG (or whoever) should
> know that already, but then again, considerable ignorance of the HTML spec
> has already been demonstrated.
>
> > What if the table is summarized in the document - do you still require a
> > summary attribute?
>
> No.
>
> Glad to see this has all reached the stage of "resolution." Too bad it
> stinks.
>
> --
>
>   Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
>   Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
>   <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:15:31 UTC