|
| |
|
|
Nicole
Posts: 2830
Joined: 9/15/2004
From: Nambucca / Kempsey, Australia
Status: offline
 |
Don't Shoot Me! - 10/4/2005 5:34:50
Tables for Layout and Table Summaries:
I'm not stubborn, well on using tables instead of CSS for layout I'm not, but it just happens that I have a lot of old sites and templates that use tables for layout, and in them I had a table summary saying "layout table" or "this is not a data table" or something similar. Checking against some accessibility checkers, I'm receiving a fail at Priority 3 now that I've deleted the table summaries (thinking that doing that was the right thing).
A few questions:
1. Is it ludicrous to claim Priority 3 accessibility if I put those same table summaries back in, considering the sites arre still using tables for layout?
2. If so, is it ludicrous to claim any level of accessibility if your site uses tables for layout?
3. Has anyone some good links to any sites which clearly explain why tables used for layout are so bad?
Please don't shoot me for asking.
Nicole
_____________________________
|
|
|
|
davidrandall
Posts: 82
Joined: 7/28/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/4/2005 6:34:44
Putting summaries on a table used for layout a grey area.
For the main "container" table a summary would be inappropriate - a screen reader user would not benefit from hearing "layout table" or similar. It may be useful, depending on the level of nesting, to have summaries describing each section (i.e, latest news).
Yes, the automated tests will fail you for not including summaries but this is another area where automated testing falls down.
You would only be able to claim level A accessibility as you would fail the priory 2 checkpoint:
quote:
3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.
Have a look at http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/ for more.
Dave
| |
|
|
|
spitfire
Posts: 424
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/4/2005 7:03:09
Hi Nicole
Personal opinions for what they may be worth.
Using tables for layout is not, necessarily, bad. But the tables must linearise properly. One (in)famous example is the site of the Royal National Institute of the Blind [ www.rnib.org.uk ] You'll have to scroll down a bit to get to the code - quirky. As is becoming increasingly common, the RNIB do not claim and "A" badges, but the tables linearise perfectly and the site is accessible.
As to agonising over reaching Priority 3. This is thought to be (almost) impossible to achieve. Some of the checkpoints are controversial or out-dated and quite a number of accessibility gurus are ignoring them.
Consider:
4.2 Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs.
Tell that to IE which doesn't support <abbr>
9.4 Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects.
Why - when I've already placed them in a logical order in the document?
9.5 Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links
That is, if you can find keyboard combinations that are not already used by browsers, apps and screen-readers. Access keys have probably reached the end of their useful life: [ http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66 ] and the related articles.
10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links.
Modern, commercial screen-reading software will say err... link, whether or not it is surrounded by a character, sandwiched between spaces. Most of the characters used sound odd, or confusing to screen-reader users.
Frankly, when I see a triple "A" badge on a site, my first reaction is - yeah right
| |
|
|
|
spitfire
Posts: 424
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/4/2005 13:58:02
QED ahem!
| |
|
|
|
davidrandall
Posts: 82
Joined: 7/28/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/5/2005 8:01:58
With (x)html and CSS, they are either coded correctly or they aren't. Accessibility on the other hand is incredibly subjective. It isn't as simple as running the site through an automated checker and seeing if it passes.
The guidelines laid down by the WAI are just that. Guidelines. They are open to interpretation. An automated checker is not open to interpretation. It cannot determine if your link text is appropriate in the context of the rest of the text. It cannot determine if the alt text of an image is appropriate for that image.
Whenever I see a "AAA" badge I just think "yeah right". I know that's very negative of me but it's usually pretty clear to see, without viewing the code, if a site is accessible or not.
quote:
why do shops, and other businesses display membership badges, and other affiliations on their shopfront
They are recognisable and have meaning, which is one of the main problems with web badges: a lack of user recognition.
Pretty much the only people who would understand valid (x)html, valid CSS, Bobby Approved, WAI AAA, Rediscover the Web, Get Firefox, GAWDS, UA-WG, BWDMA, etc, etc badges are those in the industry. A non techie is likely to ignore it because they don't understand it. If they do click on a badge, they are likely to be presented to a validation results screen that they don't understand.
I think these type of badges are left off until there is an industry standard that actually carries some weight and is recognisable for what it is.
Dave
| |
|
|
|
caz
Posts: 3518
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: Somewhere south of Chester, UK
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/5/2005 8:54:15
quote:
most commercial organisations will not be proactive on this matter. They will accept the need to have it done as apart of the package but the people commissioning the work will probably not see it as a priority.
Ah, but as I told you in the pub (when we finally found an accessible one) a local pub owner who had made great efforts to improve the accessibility of his 17th century building was very keen to do the same with his web site. So the word is beginning to percolate through to the commercial sector. Of course he knew nothing about the various web badges, unlike the AA restaurant badges; he just wanted an accessible site to complement his accessible premises.
_____________________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will dance, or more on your keyboard.
Cheshire cat. www.doracat.co.uk
I remember when it took less than 4hrs to fly across the Atlantic.
| |
|
|
|
spitfire
Posts: 424
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline
|
RE: Don't Shoot Me! - 10/5/2005 11:21:00
quote:
ORIGINAL: davidrandall
Whenever I see a "AAA" badge I just think "yeah right".
Couldn't agree more
quote:
ORIGINAL: spitfire
Frankly, when I see a triple "A" badge on a site, my first reaction is - yeah right
'tis deja vu all over again, I tell you
With standards in mind, a bit of idle surfing this am brought up this:
[ http://www.digital-web.com/articles/ten_reasons_clients_dont_care_about_accessibility/ ]
it's a relatively new article, so may not have been cited here before, although I confess I have not gone through all the accessibility articles to check. Sorry, if you've already done this one to death - just ignore- don't bother to tell me.
Now, having found that from here, same apology etc, etc :
[ http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/06/march-to-your-own-standard ]
I perceive a pattern emerging. I have a great deal of respect for Mike Davidson and what he has done in the past. Having been a standards (and accessibility) evangelist for a long time, I also have to own up to a (grudging) respect for what he has to say. Of course he must have a profound knowledge of standards to be able to do what he has done here and produce a cross-(modern) browser, accessible page, complete with font-size and font-type gizmo. The point seems to be that a lot of the standards really do not matter and I couldn't help notice that page alone has a page rank of 8.
I guess that's me black-balled from accessibility fora and one, outrageously pedantic, "standards are all that matter" forum 
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
I like the idea of asking visitors for their opinions 
) 
