Thread Subject: Group D: Table headers and Web vs. Software
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Mon, Oct 23 2006 7:45 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Group D: Table headers and Web vs. Software"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I had to change the subject
> Are people comfortable with the idea of taking a standard like 22g (Row
> and Column headers...) out of 22 since it is covered by a standard like
> what Jim proposes above? For the record, I am.
Jim is not. Header text in tables is not (are not) user interface
element(s). I think row and column header text falls under my favorite of
all WCAG 2.0 success criteria (think provisions), 1.3.1,
Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies.
This favorite of WCAG 2.0 does not, in my opinion, apply to software. This
key web provision is central to my reasoning that web and software standards
should not be combined.
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 7:32 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: RE: [teitac-websoftware] Group A distinguishing
> For all user interface components, the name, role and
> state can be programmatically determined, values that can be
> set by the user can be programmatically set, and notification
> of changes to these items is available to user agents,
> including assistive technologies. (Several words and phrases
> need definitions here, but those are available.)
I agree with this general idea, Jim. I suspect that many people will be
concerned that this standard would replace several current 1194.22
standards (specifically, this would encompass 22a, f, g, h, I, and l,
possibly o also).
I like this approach since as we start to see more than a few simple
controls in "web" documents and applications the set of standards that
currently exist in 22 are increasingly too specific to cover the needs
that are present in these applications.
Are people comfortable with the idea of taking a standard like 22g (Row
and Column headers...) out of 22 since it is covered by a standard like
what Jim proposes above? For the record, I am.
- Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Group D: Table headers and Web vs. Software"
- Previous message in Thread: None