This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
I am not sure regarding the fate of the summary attribute. Nevertheless, came across a scenario (apologies if it is a duplicate): ***A screen reader like JAWS will concatenate column headers and linearize the data cells. JAWS then presents this information in the table utility list*** When a summary attribute is applied, the problem seems to disappear. -Devarshi
Devarshi, the @summary is has been obsoleted in HTML5, have you tried using a method like aria-describedby or similar to see if this is a suitable alternative? (In reply to comment #0) > I am not sure regarding the fate of the summary attribute. Nevertheless, came > across a scenario (apologies if it is a duplicate): > > ***A screen reader like JAWS will concatenate column headers and linearize the > data cells. JAWS then presents this information in the table utility list*** > > When a summary attribute is applied, the problem seems to disappear. > > -Devarshi
Josh, I am not sure but applications developed with html5 do expose the summary attribute info to JAWS. Why does this happen? aria-describedby or similar alternatives, in my view, may not be as robust as the table summary. Thanks, -Devarshi (In reply to comment #1) > Devarshi, the @summary is has been obsoleted in HTML5, have you tried using a > method like aria-describedby or similar to see if this is a suitable > alternative? > (In reply to comment #0) > > I am not sure regarding the fate of the summary attribute. Nevertheless, came > > across a scenario (apologies if it is a duplicate): > > > > ***A screen reader like JAWS will concatenate column headers and linearize the > > data cells. JAWS then presents this information in the table utility list*** > > > > When a summary attribute is applied, the problem seems to disappear. > > > > -Devarshi
@Devarshi The user agent (the screen reader) still supports the attribute, that is why it will still work even with a HTML5 !DOCTYPE. It won't be valid HTML5 however, but that may not be an issue for you if you want to support a particular kind of user experience, so I say 'Go for it!' >aria-describedby or similar alternatives, in my view, may not be as robust as >the table summary. They are excellent alternatives, and indeed the future. However, @summary is 'hidden' by nature and aria-describedby will only point to an in page description and not a description in another URI. @summary for me was really good for the use cases that it supported (Blind, screen reader users who need a longer description for complex data tables) but the WG decided this wasn't good enough.
> @Devarshi > The user agent (the screen reader) still supports the attribute, that is why it > will still work even with a HTML5 !DOCTYPE. It won't be valid HTML5 however, > but that may not be an issue for you if you want to support a particular kind > of user experience, so I say 'Go for it!' Will it help reinstating summary since it is easier to convince developers who are likely to use it but cannot because they want valid html5? I think the problem stems from its ill-advised use rather than due to the attribute itself. > >aria-describedby or similar alternatives, in my view, may not be as robust as > >the table summary. > They are excellent alternatives, and indeed the future. However, @summary is > 'hidden' by nature and aria-describedby will only point to an in page > description and not a description in another URI. Granted ARIA is the future, but when used to substitute the summary attribute, it helps blind / low vision users.
Mass move to "HTML WG"
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: rejected Change Description:none The HTML5 specification provides [1] a method to expose an accessible name for a table that JAWS uses to label a table in the table list i.e. the provision of a caption. Also the aria-label may be used in addition to the methods described by Josh in this bug thread. All of the methods described (apart from use of summary)are conforming in HTML5. [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/tabular-data.html#table-descriptions-techniques
Steve, Would it be possible to include one of the aria methods (label / describedby etc.) in Section 4.9: Tabular Data [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/tabular-data.html#table-descriptions-techniques] thanks, Devarshi (In reply to comment #7) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. > If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, > please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full > HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and > suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker > Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this > document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > Status: rejected Change Description:none The HTML5 specification provides > [1] a method to expose an accessible name for a table that JAWS uses to > label a table in the table list i.e. the provision of a caption. Also the > aria-label may be used in addition to the methods described by Josh in this > bug thread. All of the methods described (apart from use of summary)are > conforming in HTML5. [1] > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/tabular-data.html#table- > descriptions-techniques
Sorry Devarshi if you think I closed the bug prematurely (technically it's your bug, although I did a lot of work on this issue - I have said all I have to). Do re-open if you're not happy, but for me this issue is closed.
its fine to leave it closed have pinged robin berjon for advice on adding aria technique to spec as suggested by Devarshi, will get back to you.
I am fine with how it currently stands. We probably should add one of the aria techniques under '4.9.1.1 Techniques for describing tables’ to give more flexibility and options to developers. The latest post from Steve indicates that he is aware of it. Thanks! (In reply to comment #9) > Sorry Devarshi if you think I closed the bug prematurely (technically it's > your bug, although I did a lot of work on this issue - I have said all I > have to). Do re-open if you're not happy, but for me this issue is closed.
Devarshi, See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html (Apr 2011)
John, the results are interesting. Personally, I will pick a technique from section 4.9 (including aria), but if a business rule is hardnosed about it, would push for the table summary (within the organization) – do not care if it fails validation as long as the user benefits. (In reply to comment #12) > Devarshi, See also: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0091.html (Apr 2011)
(In reply to comment #11) > I am fine with how it currently stands. We probably should add one of the > aria techniques under '4.9.1.1 Techniques for describing tables’ to give > more flexibility and options to developers. The latest post from Steve > indicates that he is aware of it. > Thanks! > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > Sorry Devarshi if you think I closed the bug prematurely (technically it's > > your bug, although I did a lot of work on this issue - I have said all I > > have to). Do re-open if you're not happy, but for me this issue is closed. Hi Devarshi, I have had some discussion with Robin Berjon the lead editor of the HTML spec and he thinks it is appropriate to add an aria technique so I will go ahead and do so and comment on bug when done. thanks for your input!
That is going to be quite helpful, Steve. Thanks! (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #11) > I am fine with how it currently stands. We > probably should add one of the > aria techniques under '4.9.1.1 Techniques > for describing tables’ to give > more flexibility and options to developers. > The latest post from Steve > indicates that he is aware of it. > Thanks! > > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > Sorry Devarshi if you think I closed the > bug prematurely (technically it's > > your bug, although I did a lot of work > on this issue - I have said all I > > have to). Do re-open if you're not > happy, but for me this issue is closed. Hi Devarshi, I have had some > discussion with Robin Berjon the lead editor of the HTML spec and he thinks > it is appropriate to add an aria technique so I will go ahead and do so and > comment on bug when done. thanks for your input!
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: fixed Change Description: added describedby example refer to https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/3059a6a46a39015ef1735910b61bcd8e0a2c4bae rationale: refer to Comment 15