RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
taping a 30 second conversation between husband and wife is using a medium the cassette and tape recorder, and it is not catching the visual cues of non verbal communication. Audio tapes are unable to convey visual information although they can convey non verbal communication as u say by inflection and tone etc,.. To use a tape is to miss a lot of information conveyed in that conversation not to simplify it. Just, my thoughts.. Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing servicesand accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenny Graham Sent: 13 July 2005 02:48 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? Tape a 30 second conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no headers or pages.It's a different ball game. Almost all forms of communication begin as structured content in the form of thoughts. You mentally structure what you want to say into sentences, you want parts of those sentences to be emphasized, etc. Then, depending on the medium you want to present those thoughts in (speech, literature, etc), you convert those abstract concepts into things like inflection and pauses for speech, and periods and italics for literature. In my understanding, XHTML/XML is a way of recording that pure structured information before limiting it to the constraints of a specific medium. It is not to record that information after it has been constrained to speech. Also, grouping headers with pages is flawed logic. Headers have a semantic meaning, while pages are, once again, a constraint of certain presentation mediums.
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I think the presentation/structure dichotomy is a bit misleading...let's talk about presentation/content (the structure of a page makes me think of its presentation rather than the content that the presentation is presenting). And I'll just throw this out there: Does anyone know how screen readers handle HR's? The use I see for HR is not presentational, par se, but rather to separate large amounts of content and make it more readable. It is the web's equivalent to a novel's line of asterisks, used to communicate a break in plot, location, or time, and is therefore part of the content just like paragraphs are. A border fails to complete this purpose for two reasons: (1) A border must be associated with a container element. Thus, in order to logically break apart large parts of text, the text cannot be contained in the same flow within one container. One might say that you could easily add a border and appropriate margin to even something as simple as a paragraph tag, but that ignores the use specified above. If I have a chapter or a report, the horizontal rule is a characteristic of that larger unit, not the last paragraph that occurs before the break. (2) A border will vanish should the style/application change. The reason I asked about screen readers is that an HR used correctly is part of the content. It dictates how that content should be subdivided and interpreted. Think of what horizontal rules accomplish in books, journals, magazines, and other text-oriented atmospheres. Is it presentation? Sure. Just like paragraph breaks (or even commas and periods) are presentation - they provide a basic building block for readable content, and are so basic that they become a part of the content. Deliver that content to a website, a publication, or an oral presentation, and in each circumstance the break should have an effect to that delivery, whether it's a visual line or a pause in delivery to communicate a division to listeners. Now, having said this I realize that W3C does not agree in the strictest sense: The HR element causes a horizontal rule to be *rendered by visual* user agents. (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.3) However, I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in other mediums, we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web, especially if we want a web that can store content from those other mediums. What are your thoughts? Did I convince you? ;-) -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Kenny Graham wrote: Am I alone in feeling that hr should be depreciated in favor of CSS borders? Especially with section in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what semantic or even structural value does hr have? Every argument for its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related. Well, I only use hr for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from graphical browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing content at times. Adds a little structure... Borders and other types of separators are fine, so those are preferred for presentational use in graphical browsers. If the future brings better solutions, then I'll probably use those instead - once the browsers have caught up. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
On 7/12/05 3:06 AM Nathan Rutman [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: However, I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in other mediums, we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web, especially if we want a web that can store content from those other mediums. Can you 'xplain what that means? Maybe I missed your point. Seems like bloviating. Rick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Hi! Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 05:33:00 haben Sie geschrieben: Am I alone in feeling that hr should be depreciated in favor of CSS borders? Especially with section in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what semantic or even structural value does hr have? Every argument for its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related. XHTML 2.0 replaces hr with separator which has a more structural meaning than horizontal rule. http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_separator I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to use something like section, too, because it sets a bracket around the content which has to be separated. But I guess that it is easier to use separator for example in a dynamic drop down menu to divide it into sections than to use brackets and define that the last one doesn't need a border-bottom. Martin. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Can you 'xplain what that means? Maybe I missed your point. Seems like bloviating. Bloviating, huh? I learned a new word today. :-) My point is a simple one. I mean that if we look outside of the web where horizontal rules are applied (which is probably the HR tag's origin), we see that they have relevance to content. Therefore, if we want to easily portray that content (books, articles, journals, etc.) on the web, something like the HR tag is needed, otherwise we loose some document portability. Let me know if I can clarify further, -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Martin Heiden wrote: I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to use something like section, too, because it sets a bracket around the content which has to be separated. That's my feeling as well. It comes down between section blah1 blah1 /section section blah2 blah2 /section and blah1 blah1 separator/ blah2 blah2 The second one is obviously more verbose, but I feel that the first is more structured. Separations should be inferred by the fact that a section has been closed and a new section started. However, I'm not really hardline about it and can see the argument from both sides... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Martin Heiden wrote: I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to use something like section, too, because it sets a bracket around the content which has to be separated. But I guess that it is easier to use separator for example in a dynamic drop down menu to divide it into sections than to use brackets and define that the last one doesn't need a border-bottom. Well as you know, XHTML 2 has section as well. I think separator/ serves a different purpose, which is to indicate that there is a (surprise) separation here in the text that does not map neatly to a cutting up of the text into hierarchical chunks as section does. This is most frequently seen in novels and poems where you will see separators rendered for instance as three little stars: * * * or some such device. It avoids having to add levels of depths in the structuration of your text for the single purpose of having that separation marked out when such structure would be otherwise meaningless. In musical terms it is more of a rest than other structuring devices such as bars. I believe it was renamed from hr because (like hr) it is not necessarily horizontal. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan Rutman wrote: My point is a simple one. I mean that if we look outside of the web where horizontal rules are applied (which is probably the HR tag's origin), we see that they have relevance to content. Of course, one could argue that books, articles, any piece of print is inherently a visual document. Therefore it makes sense that it needs a visual hint to present structure. It's one of the only ways (combined with things like layout etc) that can infer some sort of hierarchy and structure to a document. Should this purely visual solution be applied on the web, where the markup itself can provide the structure? -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I believe it was renamed from hr because (like hr) it is not necessarily horizontal. Oh, that's an interesting point. I hadn't considered that implication. -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Of course, one could argue that books, articles, any piece of print is inherently a visual document. Therefore it makes sense that it needs a visual hint to present structure. It's one of the only ways (combined with things like layout etc) that can infer some sort of hierarchy and structure to a document. Should this purely visual solution be applied on the web, where the markup itself can provide the structure? Absolutely. Many structural elements for the web have their origins in visual (i.e. written) communication. Paragraph elements derive their existence chiefly from visual cues. You can try to speak a paragraph structure by adding a pause or changing ideas, but a concrete paragraph can only be seen, not heard. Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less meaning to these structural elements (sometimes no meaning at all). A linguistics professor of mine once noted that there are very distinct differences between written language and spoken language - they are not the same animal. Three people could hear somebody speak a sentence, and come up with three different grammatically-correct representations of what they heard. Conversely (and I think this is even more prevalent), three people can speak the exact same sentence with three different styles of annunciation, and all be true to grammar. Yet in the same realm of language (oral to oral, written to written), the results would be much more accurate. Sometimes it can seem like this separation of structure from presentation is an attempt to extract data from language (language being the expression of data). If that's the case, we'll see how it goes, but I would think that the web (just like any other medium) has barriers and assumed guidelines. If we strive for too much separation, we might start entering the realm of meaninglessness. I would lump X/HTML in with that group of inherently visual documents. And someone will say, But it's data recorded electronically, not printed on a page, to which I would reply, Data is data, whether stored in ink or in memory. A hard drive can contain 00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an Elvis mp3? The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual. Screen readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret books orally. It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was visual. Anyway, that's what I think. Hopefully I won't be accused of bloviating. -Nate P.S. If XHTML 2.0 wants to replace HR with a more meaningful tag name, that's fine. I'm just saying that I think we need the functionality of that kind of element. *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan Rutman wrote: Absolutely. Many structural elements for the web have their origins in visual (i.e. written) communication. A slippery slope. Taken the rationale to the extreme, heading elements are superfluous if you can simply say make it bigger than the rest of the text a la font size=+2 Paragraph elements derive their existence chiefly from visual cues. Actually, I always saw paragraphs as one single thought or topic. Once you go on to another thought, you're starting a new paragraph. Yes, the name derives from the printed world (graph is the clue here), but the more abstract concept is not bound to print or the visual world. You can try to speak a paragraph structure by adding a pause or changing ideas, but a concrete paragraph can only be seen, not heard. Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less meaning to these structural elements (sometimes no meaning at all). A linguistics professor of mine once noted that there are very distinct differences between written language and spoken language - they are not the same animal. Three people could hear somebody speak a sentence, and come up with three different grammatically-correct representations of what they heard. But all of that is irrelevant, IMHO, because the markup unequivocally defines what is a paragraph, heading, etc. There's no inferring of structure as in listening/transcribing speech. The structure can be defined in the markup in a way that it can't be in print (where you have to usual visual represenations) or speech (where you use pauses, inflections, etc). I would lump X/HTML in with that group of inherently visual documents. I beg to differ. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that blind users can quite happily understand the structure of semantic XHTML documents? If it's so inherently visual, they should be at a complete loss. However, *because* the structure is agnostic in regards to how it's output (visually, aurally, whatever), that's not the case. The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual. Rubbish. See above. If something is a heading, it's still a heading even if I can't see it being displayed bigger than the rest of the text, and my assistive technology or whatever has to flag it some other way as being a heading. Screen readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret books orally. It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was visual. Sorry, but...rubbish again. That's like saying a speech, lecture or public reading has a primary visual intent. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan, Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 14:04:09 haben Sie geschrieben: Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less meaning to these structural elements (sometimes no meaning at all). I do not follow your argumentation. strong and em aren't derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around. bold and italics are visual expressions of emphasis. In speech you do the same with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without knowing the language. If you separate structure and visual expression, you've got much more chances to express exactly what you want. Yo can choose to express em as orange text and strong as red instead of just being bound to italics and bold. And a screenreader can still distinguish between normal and strong emphasis. Maybe someday you'll be able to instruct even the screenreader how you want to express this structure in aural way. I would lump X/HTML in with that group of inherently visual documents. And someone will say, But it's data recorded electronically, not printed on a page, to which I would reply, Data is data, whether stored in ink or in memory. A hard drive can contain 00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an Elvis mp3? The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual. Screen readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret books orally. It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was visual. You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. These are different layers of the product that you see on your monitor or hear from your speakers. If you mix the compontents you loose flexibilty. If you store a book as DATA on a harddrive expressed as STRUCTUREd CONTENT - maybe technical as xml (or xhtml) - you can transform the same STRUCTURE with it's CONTENT to a visual representation (like a webpage) or using a screenreader to aural media (voice/mp3). You only have to change the VISUALIZATION. And I think that's huge a benefit. em and strong are much more meaningful than b or i because they don't loose their meaning when transformed to different media. Martin. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Patrick, Thanks for your ideas. I'll be considering them more fully, but I did want to respond with some initial thoughts/feelings: Actually, I always saw paragraphs as one single thought or topic. Once you go on to another thought, you're starting a new paragraph. Yes, the name derives from the printed world (graph is the clue here), but the more abstract concept is not bound to print or the visual world. I agree in that paragraphs contain single thoughts/topics, but do you think of someone speaking in paragraphs? I generally constrain that to written word, but perhaps that is not accurate. But all of that is irrelevant, IMHO, because the markup unequivocally defines what is a paragraph, heading, etc. There's no inferring of structure as in listening/transcribing speech. The structure can be defined in the markup in a way that it can't be in print (where you have to usual visual representations) or speech (where you use pauses, inflections, etc). Right (and, sort of - see below)! I'm saying the structure itself is best-suited for (and derived from) a literary document, that in its very nature a visual context is assumed (reading/looking). If this were not the case, we wouldn't have to go to extra lengths to make pages accessible for non-visual users. The fact that we have to add parameters and extra data for non-visual users should show us that the underlying framework is tailored to visual users. Tape a 30 second conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no headers or pages. It's a different ball game. How do you explain the fact that blind users can quite happily understand the structure of semantic XHTML documents? If it's so inherently visual, they should be at a complete loss. However, *because* the structure is agnostic in regards to how it's output (visually, aurally, whatever), that's not the case. That's easy: they need a tool to take what a browser would give them and instead provide the information to them in a format more meaningful to them. Unless you're willing to argue that a web browser is simply one of many tools (instead of the primary and intended tool) for viewing X/HTML information, this seems semi-obvious. If the structure was truly agnostic and unbiased towards visual presentation, you'd have people with perfect vision who would rather browse the web with a screen reader. The idea that screen readers are for people who have hindered vision seems to point to a bias towards the visual presentation of X/HTML if available. Accessibility, in my understanding (and I freely admit this could be a flawed understanding) is all about providing access to people without the ability to use a full-blown GUI, point-and-click web interface (whether due to disabilities or equipment [PDAs]). Note that W3C defines accessibility as meeting the needs of users who don't (negative) have something that the typical desktop user has: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#Introduction (AListApart says similar things: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/). Accessibility doesn't seem to be about giving users a choice of interpretation as much as it is trying to give everyone the best usability experience possible - it doesn't say those experiences are equal or unbiased. That's like saying a speech, lecture or public reading has a primary visual intent. Ahh, but that's different. In those cases written language is serving the spoken, acting as notes. That's why we practice speeches and public readings. We want to communicate information that isn't in the written form via inflection, pause, and volume emphasis. All I'm getting at is that we seem to have changed our thinking about a web that hasn't changed in nature, and it seems to be on the verge of counter-productive. Sure, I want all people to be able to benefit from the sites I build, but the idea that X/HTML lends itself to auditory users as much as it lends itself to visual users I don't find very convincing. Let me know if you have any other thoughts! I've got to get to work. :-) -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Ok, real quick. :-) strong and em aren't derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around... Yes, my fault. I should have been more careful. In speech you do the same with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without knowing the language. In speech, I would say we do a similar thing...not the same. There are rules for italics (refering to a particular thing, like a book or a word) that don't refer to any verbal usage. You wouldn't want screen readers to put emphasis there (i.e. Because it is a verb, /run/ has a past, present, and future tense.). Yet we choose two elements, EM and STRONG that come from written forms instead of INF1 through INF5 for inflection values. Sure we can mimic inflection for EM and STRONG, but that doesn't change their origin or primary intention. I mean, think about it, we have whole tags devoted to tables and images - purely visual content. What purely auditory elements do we have (auditory descriptors of visual data don't count)? You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. I'm not aware of all these differences...what's the difference between data and content? Aren't they the same? The closest thing I could find is the difference between data and information (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/d/data-info.html), and if that's what you meant, I'd be interested to hear how you'd differenciate between the two in an X/HTML document. I can't think of a difference, but that certainly doesn't mean that there isn't one. Thanks for your thoughts! -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com Martin Heiden wrote: Nathan, Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 14:04:09 haben Sie geschrieben: Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less meaning to these structural elements (sometimes no meaning at all). I do not follow your argumentation. strong and em aren't derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around. bold and italics are visual expressions of emphasis. In speech you do the same with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without knowing the language. If you separate structure and visual expression, you've got much more chances to express exactly what you want. Yo can choose to express em as orange text and strong as red instead of just being bound to italics and bold. And a screenreader can still distinguish between normal and strong emphasis. Maybe someday you'll be able to instruct even the screenreader how you want to express this structure in aural way. I would lump X/HTML in with that group of inherently visual documents. And someone will say, But it's data recorded electronically, not printed on a page, to which I would reply, Data is data, whether stored in ink or in memory. A hard drive can contain 00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an Elvis mp3? The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual. Screen readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret books orally. It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was visual. You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. These are different layers of the product that you see on your monitor or hear from your speakers. If you mix the compontents you loose flexibilty. If you store a book as DATA on a harddrive expressed as STRUCTUREd CONTENT - maybe technical as xml (or xhtml) - you can transform the same STRUCTURE with it's CONTENT to a visual representation (like a webpage) or using a screenreader to aural media (voice/mp3). You only have to change the VISUALIZATION. And I think that's huge a benefit. em and strong are much more meaningful than b or i because they don't loose their meaning when transformed to different media. Martin. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan, Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 15:37:41 haben Sie geschrieben: In speech, I would say we do a similar thing...not the same. There are rules for italics (refering to a particular thing, like a book or a word) that don't refer to any verbal usage. You wouldn't want screen readers to put emphasis there (i.e. Because it is a verb, /run/ has a past, present, and future tense.). Yet we choose two elements, EM and STRONG that come from written forms instead of INF1 through INF5 for inflection values. Sure we can mimic inflection for EM and STRONG, but that doesn't change their origin or primary intention. I mean, think about it, we have whole tags devoted to tables and images - purely visual content. What purely auditory elements do we have (auditory descriptors of visual data don't count)? I think of strong and em as abstract concepts. They don't come from written forms but from the intention to distinguish between a normal part of content and a emphasized. There are some purely auditory elements in real life: Like clapping hands... And even in speech you use different melodies to express your feelings. Think of the real worlds equivalents to ;-) :-) or :-P You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. I'm not aware of all these differences...what's the difference between data and content? Aren't they the same? The closest thing I could find is the difference between data and information CONTENT is text, images... this content is represanted by 01010011 on the harddrive, which is DATA. Martin. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
We're starting to get pretty far out there. We'll have to see if any of these hopes come to fruition (which is my response to PODcasting or Talkr - we'll see if it's a lasting impact or a passing fad). Why would people with perfect vision, who have since early childhood relied on their capacity to see, be more likely to switch to an audio only browser? Yeah, that's my point. The web was built primarily to be seen and clicked on. Can X/HTML be used for other things? Sure. Is it best suited towards other things? I'm not so sure. It seems to be rooted in vision-presentation. How is a website different from the example above of notes to a speaker? Because when you go to a speech or a public reading, you go to hear the delivery as well as the information delivered. The most popular speeches that I'm aware of (I'm an American, so Dr. King's I have a dream... and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address come to mind) are popular not only for their content, but also for their delivery. We see a similar thing on the web. There comes a point where the line between content and presentation becomes blurred - they aren't always clear-cut. Actually, any web design/marketing 101 resource will tell you that. X/HTML seems better tailored to presenting the content visually than anything else. Again, we'll see what the future gives us. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I have enjoyed it. -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan Rutman wrote: Yeah, that's my point. The web was built primarily to be seen and clicked on. The web was built as a means to disseminate information. Can X/HTML be used for other things? Sure. Is it best suited towards other things? I'm not so sure. It seems to be rooted in vision-presentation. It's rooted in the dissemination of information. During the browser wars, it got sullied with a myriad of additional tags etc to force presentation into it, and we're still seeing the after-effects of it now. Actually, any web design/marketing 101 resource will tell you that. X/HTML seems better tailored to presenting the content visually than anything else. I may not be hip with the kind of basic design/marketing resources you frequent. I'd be particularly mindful of marketing resources, as they're clearly not an impartial or authoritive source of information on what the web was meant to be and what HTML should be used for... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
good content has structure, one implies the other. the word used is irrelevant. I dont know how screen readers handle HR's no, and i guess not all screen readers handle them the same way. - if your HR denotes a change of section, maybe use a h2 to begin that section. If you really want a line, you could use a border-top on your h2. - if your HR is coz because you want a line in your page, maybe use a 1x1px stretched image - with a blank alt naturally. either solution satisfies me, just depends on the situation. with regards to the spammed topic, if users could use meaningful titles in their topics, that's enough to allow me to set up mailbox rules to filter out what i dont want. thanks. Mike Whitehurstwww.mike-whitehurst.co.uk - Original Message - From: Nathan Rutman To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? I think the presentation/structure dichotomy is a bit misleading...let's talk about presentation/content (the "structure" of a page makes me think of its presentation rather than the content that the presentation is presenting).And I'll just throw this out there: Does anyone know how screen readers handle HR's?The use I see for HR is not presentational, par se, but rather to separate large amounts of content and make it more readable. It is the web's equivalent to a novel's line of asterisks, used to communicate a break in plot, location, or time, and is therefore part of the content just like paragraphs are. A border fails to complete this purpose for two reasons:(1) A border must be associated with a container element. Thus, in order to logically break apart large parts of text, the text cannot be contained in the "same flow" within one container. One might say that you could easily add a border and appropriate margin to even something as simple as a paragraph tag, but that ignores the use specified above. If I have a chapter or a report, the horizontal rule is a characteristic of that larger unit, not the last paragraph that occurs before the break.(2) A border will vanish should the style/application change. The reason I asked about screen readers is that an HR used correctly is part of the content. It dictates how that content should be subdivided and interpreted. Think of what horizontal rules accomplish in books, journals, magazines, and other text-oriented atmospheres. Is it presentation? Sure. Just like paragraph breaks (or even commas and periods) are presentation - they provide a basic building block for readable content, and are so basic that they become a part of the content. Deliver that content to a website, a publication, or an oral presentation, and in each circumstance the break should have an effect to that delivery, whether it's a visual line or a pause in delivery to communicate a division to listeners.Now, having said this I realize that W3C does not agree in the strictest sense:"The HR element causes a horizontal rule to be *rendered by visual* user agents."(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.3)However, I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in other mediums, we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web, especially if we want a web that can store content from those other mediums.What are your thoughts? Did I convince you? ;-)-Nate*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])Corporate Communications Designer*Solvepoint Corporation*882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110West Chester, PA 19382800.388.1850 x1208484.356.0990 (fax)www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.comGunlaug Sørtun wrote: Kenny Graham wrote: Am I alone in feeling that hr should be depreciated in favor of CSS borders? Especially with section in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what semantic or even structural value does hr have? Every argument for its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related. Well, I only use hr for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from graphical browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing content at times. Adds a little structure... Borders and other types of separators are fine, so those are preferred for presentational use in graphical browsers. If the future brings better solutions, then I'll probably use those instead - once the browsers have caught up. regards Georg**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I may not be hip with the kind of basic design/marketing resources you frequent. I'd be particularly mindful of marketing resources, as they're clearly not an impartial or authoritive source of information on what the web was meant to be and what HTML should be used for... You weren't following my reasoning. I wasn't saying that the marketing sites are a source for what HTML should be used for. I was claiming that I think they describe the interaction between presentation and content well - that there is a point where those layers cannot be separated and the presentation becomes part of the content. This was in context to how X/HTML is different from the written form of a speech, in that hearing the presenter deliver the speech (i.e. the presentation) feeds into the content. I'm just not sure that the delivery of information is as cut and dry as we're trying to make it...and if it's not that cut and dry, one has to ask whether the model implemented in X/HTML is truly universal. -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
The web was built as a means to disseminate information. Patrick is correct. The web is not a visual medium. Some marketers, graphic artists and designers may be shocked to learn that. The web is an information medium. One way in which that information is conveyed is visually, to user agents (web browsers). But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a specific structure that allows for semantic meaning and content to be conveyed independent of a particular means of representation. In other words, HTML can be interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance - but it doesn't have to be. When designers began designing only visual web pages during the browser wars as Patrick mentioned, they began to miss the boat skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it allows for far more than simply laying out pretty images and colors next to each other. Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this respect, and only built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with having a great visual representation. But be careful not to confuse the display of a web page with the actual page itself. This impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be simply a visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of other non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around sound principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it should be as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with perfect vision. Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only people with special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other disabilities, especially motor disabilities but including many others from lack of hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted access to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes everyone-that's the power of the web. Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Laura, I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums. You don't think it caters to one medium over another? -Nate *Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Corporate Communications Designer *Solvepoint Corporation* 882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110 West Chester, PA 19382 800.388.1850 x1208 484.356.0990 (fax) www.solvepoint.com http://www.solvepoint.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Why should sighted people not be
allowed to appreciate art online?
Mike
Whitehurstwww.mike-whitehurst.co.uk
- Original Message -
From:
Laura Carlson
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:42
PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or
Structure?
The web was built as a means to disseminate
information.Patrick is correct.The web is not a visual medium.
Some marketers, graphic artists and designers may be shocked to learn
that.The web is an information medium. One way in which that
information is conveyed is visually, to user agents ("web
browsers").But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a
specific structure that allows for semantic meaning and content to be
conveyed independent of a particular means of representation. In other
words, HTML can be interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance -
but it doesn't have to be.When designers began designing only
visual web pages during the "browser wars" as Patrick mentioned, they
began to miss the boat skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it
allows for far more than simply laying out pretty images and colors next
to each other.Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this
respect, and only built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is
wrong with having a great visual representation. But be careful not to
confuse the display of a web page with the actual page itself.This
impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be simply a
visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of other
non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around sound
principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it should be
as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with perfect
vision.Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only
people with special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other
disabilities, especially motor disabilities but including many others from
lack of hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted
access to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes
everyone-that's the power of the
web.Laura___Laura L.
CarlsonInformation Technology Systems and ServicesUniversity of
Minnesota DuluthDuluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/**The
discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor
some hints on posting to the list getting
help**
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Let us not forget that the web is a totally different medium that a printed document.While actual web presentation and structure has its origins in the printed world, we talking a different puppy with a different set of human needs and interactions with the same content. The brain perceives and interprets web page content differently than a printed document. For example, content from a printed document is perceived via reflected light. Web content itself is the light. (Oh, wait. Oh, never mind!) User can scan, read and go back and forth with a printed document. They can do the same thing with web content, to a point. The resulting physical and psychological barriers bother many people. Is it any wonder that printed content ported over to the web should be reduced by fifty percent, and executive summaries with dot point items rule the roost? We can debate and argue the finer points of coding, structure and presentation all we want with respect to the web. Let's just not forget many of us prefer a printed copy manual over any sort of on-line web content any day of the week, for a variety of legitimate and inane reasons. Our web customers make the same discerning decisions when it comes to the web as well. Most are just not aware of the decisions they make with their own web experiences. Dennis Lapcewich USDA Forest Service Webmaster Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. -- Anonymous ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums. You don't think it caters to one medium over another? Perhaps some web designers concentrate on a particular CSS media type [1] more than another. And perhaps on some web sites, sighted, dexterous, able-bodied users outnumber users with a disability. But HTML does not cater to a single media type. That's the beauty. HTML and (X)HTML are markup languages, designed for modeling the logical structure of information, not its appearance. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) control the visual appearance as well as other display media when using structural markup. The strengths of the web, which makes it unique as a medium of communication, is that it isn't limited to a visual-only output. A correctly designed web site would communicate effectively aurally as well as visually. Accessibility is not only about 'locking someone out' - everyone, after all, is a potential user of your site. But it is also about backward and forward compatibility, about writing one version of a web site (rather than several) that everyone, no matter how old or new their Internet device / OS / computer hardware, will be able to access in some way or other. Accessible web design is socially responsible and equitable web design. It shows that you are committed to providing equal access to web-based information to all people. It does not mean boring, as many will tell you. But there is an important point which shouldn't be overlooked. Most visitors to a web site are not coming there to look at it. They are coming there to accomplish a specific task. Almost invariably a simple interface will have high usability and high accessibility at the same time. What it comes down to is the ability to access information. A complete focus on the user (all users) stems from an understanding of why people are coming to your web site: Information. Accessibility is the effort toward providing equal access to the information to all-regardless of the methods they use to access it. Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/media.html ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online? Sighted people should be allowed to appreciate art online...and maybe not in the same way, but people with a disability should be able to appreciate them too. Some people think that images are bad for accessibility. The truth is that they can be of great benefit to the accessibility of a web page by providing illustrations, icons, animations, or other visual cues that aid comprehension for sighted individuals. Too often we forget that when we design for people with disabilities, we are not designing only for the blind. We must consider all disabilities types. Images can be especially useful to individuals with certain reading disabilities, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, or cognitive disabilities. The thing to remember with images is to make them accessible. The single most important thing you can do to make a web page accessible is to include alternative text for images with alt attributes. An alt attribute is used to specify alternative text. It is used to replace an image. That means that it serves the same function as the image. Users of screenreaders, language translation applications, text browsers, or some hand-held devices cannot directly access pictures and other graphics. Similarly, some users choose to turn picture loading off- especially those with slower dial-in connections. These users rely on alt attributes. When you make the decision to add alternative text, you include the many people who use talking browsers, screen readers, text browsers or browsers on small devices. Besides the alt attribute you have a few more tools at your disposal for images...title and longdesc attributes. A couple of things to keep in mind about these attributes are: First, in degree of descriptiveness title is in between alt and longdesc. It adds useful information and can add flavor. Second, the longdesc attribute points to the URL of a full description of an image. If the information contained in an image is important to the meaning of the page (i.e. some important content would be lost if the image was removed like in online art), a longer description than the alt attribute can reasonably display should be used. It can provide for rich, expressive documentation of a visual image. It should be used when alt and title are insufficient to embody the visual qualities of an image. As Joe Clark states in his book [1], A longdesc is a long description of an image...The aim is to use any length of description necessary to impart the details of the graphic. It would not be remiss to hope that a long description conjures an image - the image - in the mind's eye, an analogy that holds true even for the totally blind. Laura [1] Clark, Joe. Building Accessible Websites, New Riders Publishing, 2002. ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Nathan Rutman wrote: I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums. You don't think it caters to one medium over another? Just because the larger percentage of users are able to access it with a GUI, does not make the medium itself and the languages it's based biased towards sighted, mouse-using people. It's a bit like saying IBM PCs are biased towards the Windows operating system. Show me the part of the HTML or XHTML spec that says the languages are primarily meant as a visual markup language... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Mike Whitehurst wrote: Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online? None of us are arguing that. What I do object to, though, is the false statement that the web is *primarily* a visual medium. That is utter rubbish. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Agreed. Information can be conveyed through graphical representation too. Its still all 1s and 0s at the end of the day. Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing servicesand accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Whitehurst Sent: 12 July 2005 20:07 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online? Mike Whitehurst www.mike-whitehurst.co.uk - Original Message - From: Laura Carlson To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? The web was built as a means to disseminate information. Patrick is correct. The web is not a visual medium. Some marketers, graphic artists and designers may be shocked to learn that. The web is an information medium. One way in which that information is conveyed is visually, to user agents (web browsers). But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a specific structure that allows for semantic meaning and content to be conveyed independent of a particular means of representation. In other words, HTML can be interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance - but it doesn't have to be. When designers began designing only visual web pages during the browser wars as Patrick mentioned, they began to miss the boat skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it allows for far more than simply laying out pretty images and colors next to each other. Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this respect, and only built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with having a great visual representation. But be careful not to confuse the display of a web page with the actual page itself. This impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be simply a visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of other non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around sound principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it should be as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with perfect vision. Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only people with special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other disabilities, especially motor disabilities but including many others from lack of hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted access to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes everyone-that's the power of the web. Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
what do you mean by primarily? please elaborate. Mike Whitehurstwww.mike-whitehurst.co.uk - Original Message - From: Patrick H. Lauke To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? Mike Whitehurst wrote: Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online?None of us are arguing that. What I do object to, though, is the false statement that the web is *primarily* a visual medium. That is utter rubbish.-- Patrick H. Lauke__re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.ukhttp://redux.deviantart.com__Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://webstandards.org/__**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Mike Whitehurst wrote: what do you mean by primarily? please elaborate. To simplify, what Nathan seems to be arguing is that HTML is mainly meant to mark up documents in the tradition of print, and as such has a bias towards visual rendition in a browser to sighted users. Our argument is that HTML is more generalised than that, and was not intended to mark up content that would only be delivered visually in a browser; it was meant to mark up information so that it can be presented to the user in a variety of ways. Yes, most users are sighted and can therefore use a web browser which renders HTML as a visual document, but the same markup is also good for being read out by a screenreader, for instance. The visual representation is not inherent in HTML, it's only that it's the most common way to present HTML to the user. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on the discussion. Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a strong bias towards the visual? I would have thought not, but there you go...naive little old me... -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I don't think anyone here is arguing for HTML to be not accessible, but I feel what Mike may be trying to point out is that visual design can be an important part of the meaning. For example, I work primarily on educational sites and we know that whitespace and the amount of words in a line are part of what determines how sighted people absorb the information and learn. The same information is available to a screen reader but the ability to absorb the information into learning is lessened - not just different but lessened. MathML is a classic example of this. It is accessible (except that for visual browsers it will only work on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by screen readers. However you have to be able to hold so many more concepts inside your head at one time when reading an equation through a screen reader than a visual browser. Math equations are intrinsically more suited to a visual medium. In so many ways we must ensure that our content is as accessible as possible but it is wishful thinking to assume it is equally accessible or that one medium (vision) is not favoured over another. Yes the technology (HTML) does not favour it but human practice of communication does. Grant Focas -Original Message- Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure? Mike Whitehurst wrote: what do you mean by primarily? please elaborate. To simplify, what Nathan seems to be arguing is that HTML is mainly meant to mark up documents in the tradition of print, and as such has a bias towards visual rendition in a browser to sighted users. Our argument is that HTML is more generalised than that, and was not intended to mark up content that would only be delivered visually in a browser; it was meant to mark up information so that it can be presented to the user in a variety of ways. Yes, most users are sighted and can therefore use a web browser which renders HTML as a visual document, but the same markup is also good for being read out by a screenreader, for instance. The visual representation is not inherent in HTML, it's only that it's the most common way to present HTML to the user. -- Patrick H. Lauke ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Focas, Grant wrote: For example, I work primarily on educational sites and we know that whitespace and the amount of words in a line are part of what determines how sighted people absorb the information and learn. The same information is available to a screen reader but the ability to absorb the information into learning is lessened - not just different but lessened. Screenreader users can determine their own pace of reading, and can (provided documents are marked up properly) work their way from paragraph to paragraph etc at their own leasure, pause between sentences, go back, have a section re-read, get an overview of the structure, etc. Sure, stick someone in front of a screenreader set to read the entire page in one big go, and understanding will be lessened. But as screenreader use is an interactive process, I have serious doubts about your statement, sorry. MathML is a classic example of this. MathML is a whole separate kettle of fish, and I don't dispute that for long equations it will be more difficult to follow aural representations as opposed to visual ones. However, this is not just a problem online, as it's no different from, say, blind users learning maths from books in braille, audio tapes, etc. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on the discussion. ...been busy cracking some more bugs related to the visual - as usual. Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a strong bias towards the visual? No, (x)html is basically a media-neutral language, but most of the users are pretty biased towards a visual experience on the web - no matter the language. That affects the way we _use_ the languages available to us, just as in all other walks of life. I think the problem is that CSS is lagging behind, and software (browsers and such) are even further behind. Thus we can go on discussing what should be the proper use of (x)html as a media-neutral language, but there are in many cases few or no options but to use (or misuse) (x)html for visual presentation first, and worry about the neutrality and accessibility later. The fact that I often prefer to turn off CSS, scripting and images, and evaluate what I find on the web as pure (x)html-delivered content in the form of text, makes proper use of (x)html really interesting. As I've also started to use 'speaking' software to ensure (somewhat) that content-delivery makes sense, makes proper and well-structured use of (x)html even more important. Still, the use of (x)html has to be tilted slightly towards the visual, simply because the visual is so important to so many users, and the whole package of (x)html and supporting languages and UA-support is so weak. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
I don't think anyone here is arguing for HTML to be not accessible, but I feel what Mike may be trying to point out is that visual design can be an important part of the meaning. Then you are teaching/presenting material in the visual register and therefore presenting inherently inaccessible material. What you then need to do is transform the material. MathML is a classic example of this. Correct! http://www.ozewai.org/2004/presentations/smith.doc (Essentially, a big equation can be broken down into component parts. This can make it easier for blind users to read the equation and for sighted users to understand the equation. The equation is the same, it is just constructed in a more accessible form.) It is accessible (except that for visual browsers it will only work on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by screen readers. It is not accessible until you realign the original material so that it is not constructed purely for the visual register. In so many ways we must ensure that our content is as accessible as possible but it is wishful thinking to assume it is equally accessible or that one medium (vision) is not favoured over another. Yes the technology (HTML) does not favour it but human practice of communication does. It is not the human practice of communication, but the assumptions we make when authoring the material in the first place - even before it gets to the web. Cheers, Damian -- Damian Sweeney Learning Skills Adviser (online) Language and Learning Skills Unit Instructional Designer, AIRport Project Equity, Language and Learning Programs University of Melbourne 723 Swanston St Parkville 3010 www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/ www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/ airport.unimelb.edu.au/ ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039 This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Tape a 30 secondconversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no headers or pages.It's a different ball game.Almost all forms of communication begin as structured content in the form of thoughts. You mentally structure what you want to say into sentences, you want parts of those sentences to be emphasized, etc. Then, depending on the medium you want to present those thoughts in (speech, literature, etc), you convert those abstract concepts into things like inflection and pauses for speech, and periods and italics for literature. In my understanding, XHTML/XML is a way of recording that pure structured information before limiting it to the constraints of a specific medium. It is not to record that information after it has been constrained to speech. Also, grouping headers with pages is flawed logic. Headers have a semantic meaning, while pages are, once again, a constraint of certain presentation mediums.
RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Damian wrote: (Essentially, a big equation can be broken down into component parts. This can make it easier for blind users to read the equation and for sighted users to understand the equation. The equation is the same, it is just constructed in a more accessible form.) It is accessible (except that for visual browsers it will only work on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by screen readers. It is not accessible until you realign the original material so that it is not constructed purely for the visual register. Grant replies: Well, no. MathML by its nature is not purely for the visual register. And no - we should not have to realign a complex formula if the materials merit it because what we are doing then is making the content less accessible/comprehensible for many people to allow it to be equally accessible to all. If breaking the formula up into little chunks makes comprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complex formula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine the learning. In most learning materials complexity builds throughout the learning. We should be very wary of dumbing down content in the name of accessibility. Accessibility is a continuum not an absolute and we often have to make judgement calls that balance the interests of one group of people against another. Equally accessible doesn't exist. As accessible as possible is a fine aim. Grant Focas ** This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender. ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
If breaking the formula up into little chunks makescomprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complexformula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine thelearning.Breaking content up into little chunks doesn't in any way change the content itself, and is therefore not dumbing it down. If it somehow makes comprehension harder for any users, it is a serious flaw in the user agent.
RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Grant replies: Well, no. MathML by its nature is not purely for the visual register. And no - we should not have to realign a complex formula if the materials merit it because what we are doing then is making the content less accessible/comprehensible for many people to allow it to be equally accessible to all. If breaking the formula up into little chunks makes comprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complex formula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine the learning. In most learning materials complexity builds throughout the learning. Breaking the formula into smaller chunks made it easier for all learners to comprehend (not stated explicitly in the paper, but mentioned at the conference). We should be very wary of dumbing down content in the name of accessibility. Accessibility is a continuum not an absolute and we often have to make judgement calls that balance the interests of one group of people against another. Equally accessible doesn't exist. As accessible as possible is a fine aim. I'm not saying we should change the formula or dumb it down. The information inherent in the equation remains the same, but as with many aspects of accessibility, by transforming it we can make it easier for everyone. For me accessibility starts before we create the content, not after. I'm not saying it's easy, but my experience has been that accessible design from the ground up results in better content, not worse. Cheers, Damian -- Damian Sweeney Learning Skills Adviser (online) Language and Learning Skills Unit Instructional Designer, AIRport Project Equity, Language and Learning Programs University of Melbourne 723 Swanston St Parkville 3010 www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/ www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/ airport.unimelb.edu.au/ ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039 This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Hi, Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on the discussion. Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a strong bias towards the visual? I would have thought not, but there you go...naive little old me... Well, since you prompt... :) I see XHTML as a fairly generic method of marking up content according to meaningful definitions of communication items. We define which bits of data are headings, paragraphs, etc... but ideally when creating the XHTML we should have absolutely no thoughts about how it will look (eg. screen), sound (eg. reader) or feel (eg. braille printer). When I say generic I mean it's purposefully independent of any specific deliver/rendering mechanism. Realistically there is a limited set of options; we don't have a way to have our content spoken by robots including gestures, intonation and facial expressions. But within available options XHTML has no bias. Any bias towards the visual is just a reflection on the fact that today's computers are mostly used to silently display visual renderings of information. To put it another way, it's the way we use the web which puts an emphasis on the visual aspects... it is not the underlying markup. The line was definitely blurred with earlier versions of HTML, which included non-structural elements like FONT, B, I, U, etc. I think - getting back to the original post - the HR element suffers due to bad naming. Horizontal Rule is a visual description of how a separator might commonly be rendered. Its purpose is to separate two areas of content. It is not actually a style item, since it provides a clear boundary between pieces of content which need to be retained at all times. Separator is a much better description/definition, but we're not up to XHTML 2 yet so HR it is. So... yes, I think HR has a place as content despite the name. I personally use them between blog posts, since blog posts are a series of unrelated sections with the same heading level. I tend to hide them using CSS, replacing them with something I consider more aesthetically pleasing (eg. a border around the entire post). But that's also since I expect people with screen readers to disable CSS. If you're blind you don't need CSS and it's a waste of time and bandwidth; if you're using a screen zoom you'll stick with the page design. Both ways there is a clear separator. h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?
Kenny Graham wrote: Am I alone in feeling that hr should be depreciated in favor of CSS borders? Especially with section in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what semantic or even structural value does hr have? Every argument for its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related. Well, I only use hr for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from graphical browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing content at times. Adds a little structure... Borders and other types of separators are fine, so those are preferred for presentational use in graphical browsers. If the future brings better solutions, then I'll probably use those instead - once the browsers have caught up. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
