Dave Goodchild wrote: > Have you ever used a screen reader to navigate a nested table page? I have, > and the experience is nightmarish.
I've heard this before, but have never had the opportunity to use a screen reader (at all) myself, so I can only imagine what it's like... Do you know anywhere I can find research on this? Also what screen reader did you use and what was the sequence? > Have you ever had to maintain the look > and feel of a table-based site? I have, and the experience is nightmarish > and a waste of time and money. I can't really imagine this, but this is because I used to use tables all the time. I can't imagine how they could be so frustrating though - and there is a lot of (respected) work around the net helping people constrained to div-based layouts because it is so difficult and complicated to create column behaviour in divs that people found extremely simple with tables. > Not to mention the fact that when you use > tables for layout you are not reflecting the semantic structure of your > content - ie how it is searched, how it can be styled for different devices > (not just the screen readers you callously dismiss). I do not dismiss screen readers at all, I just don't know much about them. I think a lot of people here (I might be giving away my ignorance here :) ) would be very interested in hearing about your experience with screen readers because, although w3 tells us repeatedly that we must cater to them, it doesn't really address their behaviour in any great detail. Styling tables is no problem. There is no reason CSS can't control tables. Is there? Search problems I don't understand - do you mean sequences (ie string across table cells). The semantic thing I agree with partially. > A weak case? I don't think you understand the case at all, ot care. As for > evangelism, it's fast becoming common sense and a natural sense of evolution > rather than preaching. I don't understand this. > As far as bumping into 'compliant' sites that have nav after content for > example, at least people are trying - it's a learning curve. Are they really though? And trying to do what, exactly? Since you have access to a screen reader, do you find this problematic? I guess it's another semi-semantic issue - I've got a bit of a book design background so I've got a strong pre-conception as to the need for contents to be available first, but that may not make complete sense, and I suppose really it depends entirely on what 'feels' best with a screen reader (because apart from that, sequence doesn't matter much, does it? I mean, compliance and accessibility geeks are forever making things that are in one sequence in the markup display another way). Do you have any opinion about structural sequence as regards using a screen reader? > Anyway, I don't think you'll get much purchase with this argument on this > list - it's to help people learn, understand and use css, not to enforce > outdated ways of working or start a philsophical debate. You're right, of course. But as much as this string isn't about chunks of code per se I think it's extremely important to discuss these issues (I believe you do too?) which I have found to be taboo in the community - but I think this is the place to have it (admin correct me here)... If not, would you be interested in the debate anyway? I get the impression you have a lot more experience in these things than me, I'd like to learn other people's takes on the issue. Regards, Barney ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
