E-mail List Archives
Re: complex layout tables
From: Olaf Drümmer
Date: Jan 29, 2014 4:00PM
- Next message: Olaf Drümmer: "Re: complex layout tables"
- Previous message: Denis Boudreau: "Re: complex layout tables"
- Next message in Thread: Olaf Drümmer: "Re: complex layout tables"
- Previous message in Thread: Denis Boudreau: "Re: complex layout tables"
- View all messages in this Thread
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > 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?
yes, I believe these can be valid reasons. We all have to accept the fact that resources are limited. For some content creators / users in certain scenarios it can be very expensive (time, money, learning curve, deadlines, ) to get hold of a solution that does not use layout tables. And it may make more sense to invest on other aspects of the content and its accessibility.
> 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.
Can you envision an objective assessment of the validity of a reason?
> 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 think it's not quite the same (but I do admit you have a point - where to draw the line ?):
- using a layout table is substantially easier for many than developing the right CSS; at the same time, no semantic is lost
- using font size attribute on a P tag plus role = heading, versus using a heading tag right away to me does not sound easier, so the reason to use the former would be very weak