Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Scope etc.: new section |
→Scope etc.: reply |
||
Line 390:
I don't want to get into a long debate over this and it has already been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=391741974#Manual_of_Style_Issues discussed here] but I got told to come here. [http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/H63.html W3C says] "For simple tables that have the headers in the first row or column then it is sufficient to simply use the TH elements without scope." (''TH elements'' can effectively be read as wikitable syntax). I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AFeatured_list_candidates&action=historysubmit&diff=391741974&oldid=391740721 got told] that maybe I shouldn't believe everything the guideline says, and that this has been "reviewed by an accessibility expert". Forgive my sceptisim, but the [[Essjay controversy]] now makes me cautious over matters like this. I'd much prefer to see something in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to back up these claims. [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><font color="#E32636">Rambo's Revenge</font></b>]] [[User talk:Rambo's Revenge|<small><b><font color="#FFA500">(talk)</font></b></small>]] 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks for coming here. Such discussions in "public" are going too fast compared to the time we need to get an answer from an expert. And the editors tend to lose faith in accessibility guidelines quickly in such cases. It's always harder to rebuild the faith once again afterwards.
:"Shouldn't believe everything the guideline says" is not exactly what I meant to say. This guideline is reliable indeed. As for the definition of what is considered to be a "simple table", this guideline is vague on purpose. The interpretation of what is a "simple table" is best left to experts in this case, as they know when this technique is useful (per their feedback from users, and knowledge of assistive technologies).
:This has always been a delicate matter on Wikipedia. I met the expert in question in real life, and went to several of his conferences (where I met fellow accessibility experts). I won't tell his real identity because he doesn't want to, but I can assure you he is reliable for sure. Unfortunately, Web accessibility is a job where you need experts to intervene in the process: someone cannot possibly jump in, read a handful of pages and claim he knows. It takes months of training to become a real expert. Sure, the basics are quite straightforward and simple, a passionated developer can learn them in a handful of days. But the approach to follow in Wikipedia's case is particular because of its very nature, therefore not always documented in online resources.
:As promised I just sent an e-mail to the expert, to have further explanations on the matter. Yours, [[User:Dodoïste|Dodoïste]] ([[User talk:Dodoïste|talk]]) 00:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
| |||