I really appreciate this discussion, as both sides have very valid points.
Semantically, I think a table describes the data best. However, as emphasized through initiatives like microformats, data should be designed for humans first. I haven’t done much testing with screen readers, so I’ll take James’ word for it that a screen reader would have difficulty with a form/table hybrid. I’m all in favor of semantic markup, but if it will cause difficulty in a user agent, whether it’s a browser, a screen reader or anything else, the markup should be compromised to make the information easier to digest. It’s unfortunate that certain user agents incorrectly interpret semantics, but to claim that “any incompatibility with screen readers is an issue that the screen reader developers need to deal with” is creating a scapegoat and avoids providing a solution.
Dan Mall
I really appreciate this discussion, as both sides have very valid points.
Semantically, I think a table describes the data best. However, as emphasized through initiatives like microformats, data should be designed for humans first. I haven’t done much testing with screen readers, so I’ll take James’ word for it that a screen reader would have difficulty with a form/table hybrid. I’m all in favor of semantic markup, but if it will cause difficulty in a user agent, whether it’s a browser, a screen reader or anything else, the markup should be compromised to make the information easier to digest. It’s unfortunate that certain user agents incorrectly interpret semantics, but to claim that “any incompatibility with screen readers is an issue that the screen reader developers need to deal with” is creating a scapegoat and avoids providing a solution.