WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Using Tables

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Feb 15, 2012 11:45AM

Jared,
I am not trying to compare an inaccessible form control and an
inaccessible complex table and grade which one is more of a barrier. I
am pointing to _invisible text_ (off-screen) being considered alright
as a solution for helping one group of users (vision impaired) and
being frowned upon when _invisible text_ as a summary attribute is
used to mitigate the challenges posed by another barrier.
The email I sent yesterday evening has 2 good examples.
And when you say you found only one or two good examples in a batch
you reviewed, you are only reinforcing the point I have been making my
emails all the time: summary is needed only for really complex tables
as I explained in my first email. An again as I said before, one needs
to be aware of how the summary is used and the specific challenges
posed by a particular table before one can write a good summary. It is
a thoughtful process and needs to be drafted in a manner that serves
the end user.
Of course the table has to be marked up properly so data cells and
header cells are properly associated. But the summary helps one get
oriented to the complexity of the table's structure and adopt
appropriate navigation methods. And my first email yesterday explains
why complex tables cannot be wished away.
You are repeating what I said with great illustrations: the summary is
used excessively and mostly incorrectly making it a nuisance at most
times.
Tim- by saying that, I am not saying the summary should be dropped but
I am arguing for its retention and proper usage. I am on your side.
Sailesh Panchang




On 2/15/12, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>
>> In effect invisible text rendered by off-screen technique is not
>> much different from invisible text rendered by an HTML attribute to
>> fix an accessibility barrier.
>
> It is different. For the most part, a form control is inaccessible
> without a label whether it's on-screen or off-screen. A complex table
> on the other hand, will still be generally inaccessible with or
> without the summary. If the actual problem is resolved (the complexity
> of the table), the summary would no longer be necessary.
>
>> Why does one not say throw off the off-screen technique out of the window?
>
> Because the off-screen technique actually resolves the inaccessibility
> of page elements. In nearly all cases, the summary attribute (when
> actually necessary) simply conflates a complex table with a verbose
> description of that complexity.
>
>> misuse of, or incorrect / inconsistent
>> application of accessibility technique itself becomes a barrier for
>> users of Web content.
>
> Absolutely! Which brings me to the list of examples that Joshue
> provided. Of the dozens of examples, I found one (yes, only one)
> summary that I thought was actually useful. Nearly all of the
> summaries simply provided one or more of the following:
> - a repetition of the visible caption or other visual text.
> - a repetition of the table headers.
> - a description of the number of rows and columns in the table.
>
> All of this information is readily available to screen readers by
> simply navigating to or within the table. Many of the summaries
> provided irrelevant and verbose information that was not necessary or
> that was already provided visually. If these are the best examples we
> can come up with, it simply reinforces my thinking that table summary
> really never is used correctly and should probably just go away.
>
> Jared
>