WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: kitchen factory
Date: Jul 24, 2012 10:08PM

up to u

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> > 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
> >
> > > > > > > > > >