WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Using Tables

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Feb 12, 2012 12:21AM

> I think the web will become better as a result.
I will direct your attention to IE6+, and the lovely bugs it caused.
By 2001, MS knew of this thing called web standards, it chose to not
play by the rules. The old timers could probably tell you how long it
took to figure out IE6 didn't play nice. I am sure various people were
knocking on their door to get stuff together, it took another 5 years
to get another attempt out. Why hack something, instead of knowing it
isn't go time yet.

--
Ryan E. Benson



On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Vincent Young < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> loading a script to get super cool features is again, a waste.
>
> Fair enough, but don't agree.  With my work, it depends on the
> situation/project.  The file is 3,335 bytes that are included in my library
> JavaScript file.  The amount of download and rendering time in IE8 and
> below typically have not made enough of a difference.
>
>> Check out Steve's work at http://html5accessibility.com/ far too many
> html5 "features" have the not supported or not implemented mark to use them
>
> I had seen this article and it's a good read, but for me, it's all the more
> reason to continue to try and use these elements.  We'll just write this
> off as a difference in ideology about incorporating things on the web that
> have not made it into the W3C PR.  I will of course encourage as many
> developers to continue to use and push HTML5.  I think the web will become
> better as a result.
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:
>
>> > Doing so is fairly easy with solutions such as html5shiv (
>> http://code.google.com/p/html5shiv/).
>> Only problem with that is, more stuff to load. Pages often load tons
>> of scripts to make this little ajax box or whatever, loading a script
>> to get super cool features is again, a waste.
>>
>> > the HTML5 elements that are being exposed by AT.  I guess it all depends
>> on
>> > the environment, so your reasoning makes sense.  For me, HTML5 is just
>> too
>> > fun to wait!
>> Check out Steve's work at http://html5accessibility.com/, far too many
>> html5 "features" have the not supported or not implemented mark to use
>> them, which is some of my reasoning as to why I say HTML5 is not
>> mature enough. If you say if we use them browsers will have to make
>> them work. Ok, while not the direct same, Google still has issues with
>> accessibility on all of their products and cannot produce valid code,
>> yet it has employees on almost all W3C WG.
>>
>> --
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Vincent Young < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> wrote:
>> >> Jumping on the band wagon before HTML5 is even a PR is just a little
>> >> preemptive for me. At work we are still on IE8, even boxes running
>> >> Win7, so doing HTML5 for example, is just a waste of time for now.
>> >
>> > Even if running on older systems, incorporating most HTML5 into your work
>> > now probably does more good than harm.  Doing so is fairly easy with
>> > solutions such as html5shiv (http://code.google.com/p/html5shiv/).  When
>> > you're ready to upgrade your systems, no hassle and users can begin to
>> use
>> > the HTML5 elements that are being exposed by AT.  I guess it all depends
>> on
>> > the environment, so your reasoning makes sense.  For me, HTML5 is just
>> too
>> > fun to wait!
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve,
>> >> > many aspects of HTML5 are here right now and being used so it makes
>> sense
>> >> > take it into account.Part of the accessibility support problem is/has
>> >> been
>> >> > that what is in specs and what is supported are not always the same
>> >> thing.
>> >> > As accessibility practitioners we need to be mindful of this and
>> provide
>> >> > best practise advice based on implementation realities.
>> >> Jumping on the band wagon before HTML5 is even a PR is just a little
>> >> preemptive for me. At work we are still on IE8, even boxes running
>> >> Win7, so doing HTML5 for example, is just a waste of time for now.
>> >> --
>> >> Ryan E. Benson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:14 AM, Steve Faulkner
>> >> < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> >> > Hi Ryan,
>> >> >  "I have ignored what HTML 5 says for the most part cause it isn't
>> done,
>> >> > and kind of chuckle at it. I think people who are using it and writing
>> >> > books about it are doing it prematurely."
>> >> >
>> >> > many aspects of HTML5 are here right now and being used so it makes
>> sense
>> >> > take it into account.Part of the accessibility support problem is/has
>> >> been
>> >> > that what is in specs and what is supported are not always the same
>> >> thing.
>> >> > As accessibility practitioners we need to be mindful of this and
>> provide
>> >> > best practise advice based on implementation realities.
>> >> >
>> >> > best regards
>> >> > Stevef
>> >> >
>> >> > The summary attribute is not and has never been well supported across
>> >> > browsers and AT, so using it to provide important information, means
>> it
>> >> is
>> >> > not available to some users who would benefit from the information.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 11 February 2012 05:07, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I have ignored what HTML 5 says for the most part cause it isn't
>> done,
>> >> >> and kind of chuckle at it. I think people who are using it and
>> writing
>> >> >> books about it are doing it prematurely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Still, it doesn't make much sense to me to
>> >> >> > present the purpose to screen reader users only.
>> >> >> The flip side is why do screen readers allow you to jump between
>> >> >> tables? I think until you can tie a visual element (thinking a
>> heading
>> >> >> here) to a table a summary is needed. Summaries are usually required
>> >> >> for where I work due to their nature, and couldn't really be broken
>> >> >> down effectively.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Ryan E. Benson
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Ryan E. Benson wrote:
>> >> >> >> What makes you say that Jared? The spec (html 4) says the exact
>> >> opposite
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I guess I misunderstood this, probably because when summary was
>> still
>> >> >> > in HTML5 it was defined as for structure only. Still, it doesn't
>> make
>> >> >> > much sense to me to present the purpose to screen reader users
>> only.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > My point is that if a table is natively clear and accessible,
>> >> >> > providing a summary won't make it more accessible. And if it's not
>> >> >> > natively accessible, then it needs to be made accessible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Jared
>> >> >> >