2 ms·

> Lynx is a text-mode browser, not a screen reader; it's still visual. Sure. The point isn't that Lynx is an assistive UA, the point is that it's at least one

> Lynx is a text-mode browser, not a screen reader; it's still visual. Sure. The point isn't that Lynx is an assistive UA, the point is that it's at least one UA that figured out how to throw away layout-purposed table markup (which, like some assistive UAs, doesn't make any sense in its rendering context) and still render (some) markup that represented tabular data. Is it really the only one? > Assistive tech has a whole lot more going on. They have a slew of navigation modes and need cues from content to prevent the user from getting lost, you can't just scroll or look back up to where you where Right, but is that really tied up with non-semantic table use? I'd think it's the presence or absence of things like access keys, title/alt text, and I guess at this point aria attributes that makes the difference, not table markup.

ricardobeat 13y ago
Exactly, Lynx is not an assistive UA. Keyword there is `render`. It makes very little use of tags' semantic meaning compared to a screen reader. Alt/title attributes are just a small part of the picture. You are underestimating the damage bad markup does, and how deeply assistive software relies on semantics/metadata/structure. As I said, just fire up voiceover and try to browser HN. Actually, I'll quickly do that for you: http://cl.ly/3l3E2C000419 http://cl.ly/3l3E2C000419 I'm comparing table-based HN to one of it's alternative interfaces, not ideal but much better. It's a very shallow example, and I'm using only basic navigation commands - experienced users can use more complicated navigation schemes to discover content, out of necessity - but you get the idea. Lots of noise (row x of x, column xxx..), blank cells are "read", etc. Remember HN is a very simple and spartan website, now imagine what a slightly more complex nested table layout looks like. Also, see WebAIM surveys for actual assistive tech usage data: http://webaim.org/projects/ http://webaim.org/projects/
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Lynx is not an assistive UA. Keyword there is `render`. It makes very little use of tags' semantic meaning compared to a screen reader. It is, however, apparently smarter about the use-semantics of table markup than most screen readers, if I'm to take your example as the norm. > imagine what a slightly more complex nested table layout looks like. Having spent more time than I care to remember inside the code of complex nested table layouts, I unfortunately don't really have to work too hard to imagine. :/ > You are underestimating the damage bad markup does, and how deeply assistive software relies on semantics/metadata/structure. I can see/hear from your example that the table markup is a challenge for voiceover. I'm not sure I was underestimating the damage repurposed markup does more than I was overestimating the ambitions of assistive UI devs. I'm just astounded that voiceover wouldn't haven't implemented at least a mode for making likely distinctions between table markup that's being used for tabular data and table markup that's being used for layout, when making such a distinction is not only clearly possible but has been done. Then again, I'm astounded that it's 2013 and Adobe still can't install onto case-sensitive volumes, so there's that.

ricardobeat 13y ago

Exactly, Lynx is not an assistive UA. Keyword there is `render`. It makes very little use of tags' semantic meaning compared to a screen reader. Alt/title attributes are just a small part of the picture. You are underestimating the damage bad markup does, and how deeply assistive software relies on semantics/metadata/structure. As I said, just fire up voiceover and try to browser HN. Actually, I'll quickly do that for you: http://cl.ly/3l3E2C000419 http://cl.ly/3l3E2C000419 I'm comparing table-based HN to one of it's alternative interfaces, not ideal but much better. It's a very shallow example, and I'm using only basic navigation commands - experienced users can use more complicated navigation schemes to discover content, out of necessity - but you get the idea. Lots of noise (row x of x, column xxx..), blank cells are "read", etc. Remember HN is a very simple and spartan website, now imagine what a slightly more complex nested table layout looks like. Also, see WebAIM surveys for actual assistive tech usage data: http://webaim.org/projects/ http://webaim.org/projects/

wwweston 13y ago
> Lynx is not an assistive UA. Keyword there is `render`. It makes very little use of tags' semantic meaning compared to a screen reader. It is, however, apparently smarter about the use-semantics of table markup than most screen readers, if I'm to take your example as the norm. > imagine what a slightly more complex nested table layout looks like. Having spent more time than I care to remember inside the code of complex nested table layouts, I unfortunately don't really have to work too hard to imagine. :/ > You are underestimating the damage bad markup does, and how deeply assistive software relies on semantics/metadata/structure. I can see/hear from your example that the table markup is a challenge for voiceover. I'm not sure I was underestimating the damage repurposed markup does more than I was overestimating the ambitions of assistive UI devs. I'm just astounded that voiceover wouldn't haven't implemented at least a mode for making likely distinctions between table markup that's being used for tabular data and table markup that's being used for layout, when making such a distinction is not only clearly possible but has been done. Then again, I'm astounded that it's 2013 and Adobe still can't install onto case-sensitive volumes, so there's that.