By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,246 Members | 1,401 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,246 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Hybrid table accessibility techniques

P: n/a
This question is based on Examples 2 and 3 on

http://gavelcade.com/table.html

Beyond correct use of THs, this table is not specially marked up for
accessibility--except for a scope="col" attribute for the "Country"
header. And therein lies my question. It seems you can break
accessibility table markup into three different levels:

1. None (except for THs), as long as the headers are the first cell in
the column or row containing the corresponding data.

2. Use of the scope attribute.

3. Use of id and headers attributes (and axis, if desired).

Does one approach have to be used consistently within one table?

For example, in Example 2, Level 1 works except for the top left cell,
which is inherently ambiguous when non-empty. So I've added
scope="col" to that cell. Does that prevent a UA from correctly
associating all the other headers?

Example 3 is a Level 3 kind of table (which I have not actually marked
up for Level 3). What if I leave the names of the countries without id
attributes, excluding them from the headers attribute in the data
cells. Will, or should UAs figure out that they should be associated
under the Level 1 principle? Will they notice the scope attribute on
the upper left "Countries" cell and correctly associate it with the
names of the countries underneath?

My ulterior motive is to find out whether you can apply the more
complicated markup only to the extent needed, saving yourself a lot of
work.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this question for a faster answer!
Share on Google+

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.