Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Timeshifter (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 392:
::::I'm all for ensuring good accessibility for screen readers, but I'm confused as to why a simple, two-column table has to be rendered in the current way. And/or: why it is that the screen-reader-friendly input needs to even register visually when one reads the page "normally". (Why do we need to ''see'' what that software handles differently?) As I've said, my concern is with the two-column tables for record charts. Not only is it so simple in presentation that one questions whether info in the left-hand column really is a row header, but the table ends up such an eyesore, because the darkened-out LH column is usually far wider than the RH column, which contains just a single or double digit.
::::Anyway, don't feel the need to reply to that. I obviously need to do some reading. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|JG66}}. I agree. I don't see the need for the gray background of the row headers. Or the bold font. It is obvious what are row headers in most tables when the row headers are on the left side of the table. And screen readers only need the scopes or <nowiki><th></nowiki>.
:::::I think a gray background with black text is not enough contrast. Especially when the gray is too dark as in Wikipedia tables. And I keep my monitor brightness turned down. As recommended by many eye doctors. That makes the contrast even less.
:::::It is annoying. So it would be nice to have truly plain row headers with a white background and a regular (non-bold) font. Then people would be more likely to add scopes for row headers. At least for more complex tables. Scopes are not needed on simple tables. --[[User:Timeshifter|'''Timeshifter''']] ([[User talk:Timeshifter|talk]]) 02:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
| |||