Table test updated
A couple of years ago Roger Hudson and I put together some data tables that we asked people to test. The tables used different accessibility features and we were keen to see which ones people found the most effective.
The results from these tests helped us prepare the article - Accessible Data Tables, which concluded with:
“At this stage, it appears that id and headers are the most effective way to make complex data tables accessible. Although id and headers are slightly more difficult to code than scope, the apparent poor screen reader support for scope means that this is probably not an effective accessibility option.”
In the last two years, the world has moved on; screen readers have improved and we’ve received a number of suggestions about how to improve our original tables. As a result, we have now prepared a new page, “Data Table Accessibility Test Update“, with some different tables.
We would greatly appreciate any feedback about the accessibility of these tables – in particular which ones are more or less accessible for screen reader users and why.
October 2nd, 2007
4:50 pm
Permalink
Tables 2 & 3 seems to me to be easier to read and follow. I know you are after screen reader tests but for plain normal reading I prefer to look at those tables (2 & 3) than 1 & 4.
October 2nd, 2007
9:58 pm
Permalink
I agree Jermayn, from a usability point of view. It will be interesting to see if screen reader users agree
October 9th, 2007
8:01 pm
Permalink
What are current opinions on the requirement for table summaries as specified in the WCAG WAI priority 3 guidelines. My understanding is that they don’t help with accessibility so the guideline is pretty much redundant, but I would love to hear if anyone differs with this view.