WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: complex layout tables


From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Jan 29, 2014 3:39PM


We will never succeed at preventing developers who couldn’t care less about semantic code - or worse, who think aria is the answer to everything - to just slap heading roles, presentation roles and whatnot on top of presentational markup. What we can do however, is keep on insisting that there’s a better way to do things ( that there’s ALWAYS BEEN a better way to do things), one that does not expects anyone to rely on aria to fix clueless coding mistakes.


On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> On 29/01/2014 20:59, Olaf Drümmer wrote:
>> so given there are valid reasons, it can be acceptable - on a normative level - to use a layout table.
> And those valid reasons were? That authors may not be aware how to do it any other way? That doing a layout with tables is quicker for them?
> If that is subjectively felt as being a valid reason, then fair enough, stick role="presentation" in there as well and be done with it.
> On the same token, constructs like
> <p><font size="+2">I'm an H1 yo!</font></p>
> are then also valid, of course, as long as you stick a role="heading" in there somewhere.
> I see that in future we'll refrain from making best-practice suggestions that have been around for over a decade...
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
> > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > >