E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2015 11:56AM
Subject: Q: Table footnotes in Word
No previous message | Next message →

Question for Word users:

We have a client requesting that tables in Word have their footnotes (and
other notes and sources) after the table, outside the <table> tag.

We're under the impression that they should be within the <Table> tag, in a
row at the bottom. Essentially in a footer row.

WCAG is not clear on this for Word tables.



Your opinion?



- - -

Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2015 12:05PM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

Word has only primitive accessibility hooks for data tables, so I'm not sure there would be a significant difference. I would think they belong outside the table, but immediately after, since the column headers wouldn't apply to them and all the accessible Word instructions say to not merge cells. (But I wouldn't bet any actual money on that being the "right" answer.)

Sarah E. Bourne
Director of IT Accessibility, MassIT
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/MassIT

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2015 4:00PM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

> We're under the impression that they should be within the <Table> tag, in a row at the bottom. Essentially in a footer row.

I would consider placing footnotes in a table a accessibility violation as that information isn't tabular data. I believe the idea of the tfoot element was for column summaries -- not other data that applies to the table as a whole.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

703-637-8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2015 4:08PM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

I concur

--
Ryan E. Benson

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Avila < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> > We're under the impression that they should be within the <Table> tag,
> in a row at the bottom. Essentially in a footer row.
>
> I would consider placing footnotes in a table a accessibility violation as
> that information isn't tabular data. I believe the idea of the tfoot
> element was for column summaries -- not other data that applies to the
> table as a whole.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jonathan
>
> --
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 703-637-8957 (o)
> Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
>
>
>

From: Jon Metz
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2015 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

I don't agree with it being an accessibility violation. They are *related*
to the tabular data, so that makes them part of the information you are
providing. By this very definition, it would be meeting WCAG 2.0 1.3.1,
because it directly applies to how you are marking up the structure of the
table.

I do however agree with Sarah that unfortunately Word does a miserable job
organizing this stuff. Technically they should be in the footer cell, but
it might not be usable to people because of how badly Word handles it. So
placing them outside the table in this case might be the best case
scenario, and having them near the table would *also* be conforming to
1.3.1 because having them *inside* the table is "within the presentation"
but *outside* the table is "conveyed in text".

I think this is one of those situations where you just do what's best for
the user. This is something one of the really unfortunate realities about
accessibility. Sometimes you can't please everybody, so you need to figure
out how to make it usable to the widest possible audience (Take a look at
the all the problems that iPlayer from BBC is having with the inability to
make everyone happy).

If I were you, I'd leave them out and then try to get Microsoft to do
things appropriately so we can make things more accessible for a wider
audience. But however you do it it's still within the scope of 1.3.1 based
on my interpretation of it.

My two cents.

Jonathan


On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> I concur
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Avila <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > > We're under the impression that they should be within the <Table> tag,
> > in a row at the bottom. Essentially in a footer row.
> >
> > I would consider placing footnotes in a table a accessibility violation
> as
> > that information isn't tabular data. I believe the idea of the tfoot
> > element was for column summaries -- not other data that applies to the
> > table as a whole.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Avila
> > Chief Accessibility Officer
> > SSB BART Group
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > 703-637-8957 (o)
> > Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
> >
> >
> >

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2015 2:41PM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

Bevi, I would isolate the table caption and the table in a section. I would use end notes instead of footnotes. This would make the notes fall immediately below the table while giving you the proper linking between each note and its citation.

This method makes it possible to have footnotes in the body of the document and footnotes in each table without having any confusion about which notes are which.

Although I've never seen the section element mentioned in training on creating accessible documents in Word, it does have semantic value. This is one instance in which that value can be particularly helpful.

Cliff Tyllick

Sent from my iPhone
Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its fault.

> On Mar 14, 2015, at 1:40 PM, Jon Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> I don't agree with it being an accessibility violation. They are *related*
> to the tabular data, so that makes them part of the information you are
> providing. By this very definition, it would be meeting WCAG 2.0 1.3.1,
> because it directly applies to how you are marking up the structure of the
> table.
>
> I do however agree with Sarah that unfortunately Word does a miserable job
> organizing this stuff. Technically they should be in the footer cell, but
> it might not be usable to people because of how badly Word handles it. So
> placing them outside the table in this case might be the best case
> scenario, and having them near the table would *also* be conforming to
> 1.3.1 because having them *inside* the table is "within the presentation"
> but *outside* the table is "conveyed in text".
>
> I think this is one of those situations where you just do what's best for
> the user. This is something one of the really unfortunate realities about
> accessibility. Sometimes you can't please everybody, so you need to figure
> out how to make it usable to the widest possible audience (Take a look at
> the all the problems that iPlayer from BBC is having with the inability to
> make everyone happy).
>
> If I were you, I'd leave them out and then try to get Microsoft to do
> things appropriately so we can make things more accessible for a wider
> audience. But however you do it it's still within the scope of 1.3.1 based
> on my interpretation of it.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>> I concur
>>
>> --
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Jonathan Avila <
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> We're under the impression that they should be within the <Table> tag,
>>> in a row at the bottom. Essentially in a footer row.
>>>
>>> I would consider placing footnotes in a table a accessibility violation
>> as
>>> that information isn't tabular data. I believe the idea of the tfoot
>>> element was for column summaries -- not other data that applies to the
>>> table as a whole.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Avila
>>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>>> SSB BART Group
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 703-637-8957 (o)
>>> Follow us: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Blog | Newsletter
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Chagnon | PubCom
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2015 1:19AM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks, Cliff. That's a somewhat workable solution.

But it does mean that the tables footnotes will appear after the end of the
table, and with a 23-page table in this document, then that means the
footnotes appear on page 23, and only on page 23 rather than repeated at the
bottom of each page like most software programs do and users expect to
encounter.

Although AT users can click the hyperlink and view the footnote several
pages away, sighted users are hampered. Even though they could click the
hyperlink, they generally don't. And in the printed version, there are no
hyperlinks to click.

What's needed is a better solution for tables from W3C and WAI. Right now
they don't address that tables have footnotes or extend over many pages (one
of our government clients publishes a 350-page table every quarter --- one
continuous table).

Just as we have repeating headers on every page of a table, we also need its
complement, repeating footers on every page that hold the table's footnotes
and source information.

Adobe InDesign's latest table tools in CC:2014 allow both table headers and
footers to be designated and repeated on each page. When exported to PDF,
the tag structure looks like this:
<table>
<thead>
<TR> <TH><TH> etc.
<tbody>
<TR> <TD> <TD> etc.
<tfoot>
<TR> <TD> etc.

Very easy to set up and it creates a logical structure. However, its use of
tfoot as a table footer seems to be in violation of WC3's standards, where
tfoot isn't a footer at all but instead is only a column total, not a table
total/whatever, and it can't repeat. And because, by definition, tfoot can
have more tbody after it, it can also be a column subtotal. Why this tag is
called tfoot is beyond my wildest dreams! It isn't like any footer in any
software or media anywhere.

So we have a huge disconnect between what our software tools do, what
publishers need to have done, and what accessibility tags/techniques we have
to publish content in multiple formats.

Sure makes life interesting, doesn't it.

--Bevi Chagnon

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Sun, Mar 15 2015 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Q: Table footnotes in Word
← Previous message | No next message

I can think of a solution that is still less than perfect and think of another problem with the original solution—with both solutions, actually.

If you want all notes repeated on all pages on which the table appears, copy the end notes and paste them in the section's footer.

A problem I can see with these approaches is that you will no doubt have multiple citations of each note from the table. That being the case, there is no consistent place to link back to after the end of the note. I don't see a way around that one.

Cliff Tyllick

Sent from my iPhone
Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its fault.

> On Mar 15, 2015, at 2:19 AM, Chagnon | PubCom < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Thanks, Cliff. That's a somewhat workable solution.
>
> But it does mean that the tables footnotes will appear after the end of the
> table, and with a 23-page table in this document, then that means the
> footnotes appear on page 23, and only on page 23 rather than repeated at the
> bottom of each page like most software programs do and users expect to
> encounter.
>
> Although AT users can click the hyperlink and view the footnote several
> pages away, sighted users are hampered. Even though they could click the
> hyperlink, they generally don't. And in the printed version, there are no
> hyperlinks to click.
>
> What's needed is a better solution for tables from W3C and WAI. Right now
> they don't address that tables have footnotes or extend over many pages (one
> of our government clients publishes a 350-page table every quarter --- one
> continuous table).
>
> Just as we have repeating headers on every page of a table, we also need its
> complement, repeating footers on every page that hold the table's footnotes
> and source information.
>
> Adobe InDesign's latest table tools in CC:2014 allow both table headers and
> footers to be designated and repeated on each page. When exported to PDF,
> the tag structure looks like this:
> <table>
> <thead>
> <TR> <TH><TH> etc.
> <tbody>
> <TR> <TD> <TD> etc.
> <tfoot>
> <TR> <TD> etc.
>
> Very easy to set up and it creates a logical structure. However, its use of
> tfoot as a table footer seems to be in violation of WC3's standards, where
> tfoot isn't a footer at all but instead is only a column total, not a table
> total/whatever, and it can't repeat. And because, by definition, tfoot can
> have more tbody after it, it can also be a column subtotal. Why this tag is
> called tfoot is beyond my wildest dreams! It isn't like any footer in any
> software or media anywhere.
>
> So we have a huge disconnect between what our software tools do, what
> publishers need to have done, and what accessibility tags/techniques we have
> to publish content in multiple formats.
>
> Sure makes life interesting, doesn't it.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
>