Re: WCAG-ISSUE-23 (DavidMacD): We should consider a new "Failure to provide role=presentation on a layout table"

Perhaps we are exploring the nature of what WCAg means when we say "common
failures". There may be a certain amount of fluidity of understanding among
current and past group members. Such as what a failure means, really.

I'm not sure that I agree that WCAG should only define failures for
circumstances that universally never work on any assistive technology. I
suggest that almost every WCAG failure would have to be eliminated if we
were to use that litmus test. For instance, when JAWS sees nothing in the
ACCNAME of the API for an image, it uses heuristics as it attempts to read
the file name of an image that has no alternate text. Perhaps the file name
is sufficiently explanatory <img scr="fluffythedog.jpg">. We would have to
throw out a lot of failures using the logic that "sometimes AT gets it
right despite questionable authoring."

Failures I don't think should be dependent upon these types of desperate
attempts by AT to help their users.

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:50 AM, Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>
wrote:

> I am not saying that it is consistent or that we should rely on
> heuristics, what I'm saying is that it is not always failing and that a
> WCAG failure would mean "you have to change this". Let's imagine a closed
> environment with a web app where the layout tables are supported, even if
> they have no role="presentation". Will be mandatory to find and change all
> the offending tables (distinguishing them from other possible data tables)
> just to solve a no-problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Ramón.
>
>
> Alastair wrote:
>
>  Ramón Corominas wrote: "Thus, I would say that -at least in this case-
>> the layout table is a way of using technology that is "accessibility
>> supported", that is, it "has been tested for interoperability with users'
>> assistive technology". Maybe it is ugly, but it is supported."
>>
>> Well, last time I came across this as an issue (on an intranet) there
>> were no table headings, summary, or anything to mark the tables as data.
>> However, NVDA and VoiceOver both announced the table cells.
>> That is the point though - it is not consistent unless you specify it. I
>> don't think relying on AT heuristics is good enough.
>>
>
>
>
>
>