WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: When is use of scope, col and/or colgroup important for accessibility?

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Jul 24, 2012 9:47PM

> What?? Explain further. A table with 5 rows and ten columns, with the first
> row containing all <th>s for their corresponding columns is fully compliant
> per WCAG2 (AFAIK), so why are you failing it?
Our interpretation of Section 508. We extend 1194.22(g) in our
checklists so scope is defined, AND to ensure <th> isn't randomly used
to bold and center text in a table.

> Fair enough, but you've just made a pretty broad and sweeping statement that
> justifies some more level of reasoning/proof on why you would "fail" it.
Above may answer this, but also Jared sums it up: "It makes me a
bit uncomfortable when screen readers assume things (see
http://webaim.org/blog/semantic-automation/) and it's extremely easy
to add scope attributes, so I usually recommend doing so."
AT probably guesses what direction the scope goes these days because
people didn't use scope often/correctly enough. If we have the method
of telling AT what to do, and it takes 11 characters to do it, why
not. Stating that AT can guess scope correctly most of the time, we
probably will never say <label> is optional, if the AT can guess form
elements correctly most of the time, correct?

--
Ryan E. Benson


On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, John Foliot < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Ryan E. Benson wrote:
>>
>> > If I'm in a one dimensional data table, I just use the appropriate
>> > <th> tags to mark up all my table headers.
>> At work, I would near -automatically mark this as not compliant.
>
> What?? Explain further. A table with 5 rows and ten columns, with the first
> row containing all <th>s for their corresponding columns is fully compliant
> per WCAG2 (AFAIK), so why are you failing it?
>
>> I
>> would give a bit of leeway if the table in question was 3x3 or under.
>> Would I say a 4x2 or 4x3 is not compliant? I do not wish to discuss
>> that level of policy here.
>
> Fair enough, but you've just made a pretty broad and sweeping statement that
> justifies some more level of reasoning/proof on why you would "fail" it.
> Please elaborate.
>
> JF
>
> > >