Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Hi all respondees Ben Said ...it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). I am doing the latter.. (a page (or more) of business listings) so I was wanted an easy way to tie all the relevent information into one nice little block. As Lucien said the W3schools states that The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. with no mention of form controls and that's why I asked the question in the first place. It was a response to an is there a better way to do this sort of a moment! Also as Lucien said.. i didnt just want to draw a box visually around a bit of content.. i wanted to be able to clearly group the related information together neatly. I considered a DL but found it too restricting and I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tages etc churned out repeatedly down the page. It seemed to me that if the W3 schools definition of a fieldset was correct and valid then it was ideal for my requirements. The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? So... what to do? I dunno frankly... the jury is still out. I will say this though ...i think its a shame that when someone takes the time to respond to a question and states their point of view only to get shot down in flames and virtually abused. This list is here to enable us to discuss the implementation of webstandards amongst like minded people and I'm sure no one is really hell-bent on abusing the standards. Cheers Jackie - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Can fieldsets only to be used in forms or can they be used to group any sort of related information together (ie: business name, short description, logo and link). The spec's wording is a little vague but by my reading of it, fieldset and legend are only intended for form controls. Beyond the spec, I would imagine that the average user's expectation is that fieldset+legend = form inputs, so purely from a usability point of view I'd keep fieldsets for forms. For general content, the heading structure should group information together; and don't forget that although we use them constantly, DIVs do actually add structure (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-DIV). When I really want to break up a page into chunks I also use HRs, although many people contest that usage I think it's valid. Lists also group related items together; although I do think it's an oversight of the spec that you can't explicitly associate a label or caption with lists. Still, a subheading + list is usually a pretty clear association. In some ways it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). Just my opinion, no doubt there will be plenty of others :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** __ NOD32 2308 (20070604) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
At 6/4/2007 07:22 PM, Steve Green wrote: Day after day in this forum some people seem to be hell-bent on abusing the standards like this? Why? I think the 'why' is important enough to merit mention; it's not just a rhetorical question. Most of us are trying to create the most sensible pages we can. To do so we're using an incredibly sparse markup language with a few very specific elements, a few vague ones, and enormous gaps between them. We've all wished fruitlessly for HTML to support our efforts to mark up content more semantically, and we're always looking for better ways to do it. No wonder there are surges of effort to create the next generation of HTML. Some elements of markup must be taken quite literally (horizontal rule) while others are quite loose and metaphorical (span). Human language at its very essence is metaphor. Depending on how you squint at it, the spec can be read very loosely (the road to ruin) or very strictly (the road to the padded cell). While the DTD is strict in its stipulations of which elements can contain which others, the spec's verbal descriptions of markup elements and the examples given are often interpetable from a variety of angles, as we see every day in this list. There's lots of wiggle-room in the HTML spec for wishful, well-meaning web developers to seek elements that can be comfortably stretched to cover a usage that might not have occurred to others. I often wonder what the authors of the HTML spec feel when they observe us web developers arguing over usage. A certain pride, for sure, but also perhaps some embarrassment... on our behalf or their own? So often we treat the document like it's a holy writ passed down from on high, while it's really just a document written by some folks. The description of the definition list is a prime example. Few of us question the meanings of the words definition and list and yet the atuhors of the HTML spec opened the door wide, first using the alternative term description for the DD and then adding, Another application of DL, for example, is for marking up dialogues, with each DT naming a speaker, and each DD containing his or her words. The authors explicitly encouraged us to interpret the element name definition list to include structures that are not strictly definitions and even arguably lists. If a dialog can be marked up as a list then why not use an unorderd list markup for a series of paragraphs? (Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not arguing here that we ought to do so, I'm merely sketching the anatomy of our disagreements.) The vast majority of the debates of markup usage and semantics I read -- and take part in -- turn on this very point: how metaphorically may we interpret the spec? I have sympathy for those who want to stretch the small, threadbare blanket of HTML to try to cover our broad work; and I have sympathy for those who argue that a consistent interpretation of the spec is necessary to build a solid body of markup for the content-parsers of today and the future. We are all justified. Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 3:34 PM, Jackie Reid wrote: The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? Forgot this point: valid doesn't mean correct, or sensible. It's really easy to write code that validates, but which is semantic rubbish. The Validator is a great tool for checking the correctness of markup, but it can't interpret context - it's just a dumb piece of software. Oh, and while we're talking semantics: fieldset = set of fields - doesn't it? Comes back to those tables again. You can - they'll validate just fine, if you do 'em right. But does that mean you should? How robust will your markup be, over time and across technologies? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Lucien Stals For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools site, and it's a debate worth having. No need to debate it...w3schools is a cr*ppy resource, full stop. The definition of theirs that you quoted above is a case in point...they define an element by its visual effect? I haven't checked the site, can't be bothered, but I wouldn't be surprised if for blockquote they say it indents text... But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for *adding structure* to documents. Divining hidden meaning from the HTML specifications, conveniently ignoring certain parts of the descriptions, and then intimating I'm sure this is what the W3C *meant* to say is the refuge of...? P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor External Relations Division University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 6:13 PM, Patrick Lauke wrote: No need to debate it...w3schools is a cr*ppy resource, full stop. That's an opinion, which of course you're entitled to (happens that I agree with you) - but I couldn't resist taking a look. And right there on their Home page: W3Schools provides material for training only. We do not warrant the correctness of its contents. The risk from using it lies entirely with the user. Well, yes. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
but that doesn't mean that the resulting document actually makes any sense whatsoever... Thank you Patrick. Especially to those using assistive devices. Kind regards, Frank M. Palinkas Microsoft M.V.P. - Windows Help W3C HTML Working Group (H.T.M.L.W.G.) - Invited Expert M.C.P., M.C.T., M.C.S.E., M.C.D.B.A., A+ Senior Technical Communicator Web Standards Accessibility Designer website: http://frank.helpware.net email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member: Society for Technical Communications (S.T.C.) Guild of Accessible Web Designers (G.A.W.D.S.) Web Standards Group (W.S.G.) Supergroup Trading Ltd. Sandhurst, Gauteng, South Africa website: http://www.supergroup.co.za Work: +27 011 523 4931 Home: +27 011 455 5287 Fax: +27 011 455 3112 Mobile: +27 074 109 1908 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke Sent: Tuesday, 05 June, 2007 10:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Nick Gleitzman Forgot this point: valid doesn't mean correct, or sensible. It's really easy to write code that validates, but which is semantic rubbish. The Validator is a great tool for checking the correctness of markup, but it can't interpret context - it's just a dumb piece of software. Validation is akin to a word processor's spellchecker: it can tell you if you spelt everything correctly, but that doesn't mean that the resulting document actually makes any sense whatsoever... P Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor External Relations Division University of Salford Room 113, Faraday House Salford, Greater Manchester M5 4WT UK T +44 (0) 161 295 4779 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.salford.ac.uk A GREATER MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
On 6/5/07, Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Well said. In all a very insightful post. I agree, generally we're all trying to do our best with what we have. However, some of us are pedantic about using the most appropriate element possible while others are happy to use something that makes sense in their styling context. I think some of us (myself included) lose touch a little when we see someone do something differently to how we would, and start getting all high and mighty. In a way, it's so easy to do, because we are passionate about what we do. I think that's why we clash horns so often, because we do care. But so many developers don't care at all, so I think we should remember that we're generally on the same side on this list. Regards, Blake -- Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Philip Kiff wrote:
As Felix points out, your current template breaks IE's built-in font resizer
(View - Text Size - Larger/Largest). This problem is caused by your
definition of the default body text size as 14px. The use of “px”
measurements for font sizes is not scalable under Microsoft Internet
Explorer.
Here is the specific line in your CSS file that is causing this problem:
htmlbody { font-size : 14px; }
In terms of standards, using a px-based measurement is not technically
against the font and unit guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines version 1.0, since the error is actually caused by Internet
Explorer’s misunderstanding of px units. But since the W3C WCAG also
recommends testing with actual users of actual browsers, then the use of
px-based font sizes becomes an identifiable barrier for users of Internet
Explorer, and so ends up as something that goes against the WCAG in the end.
To resolve this issue, you should use a different kind of relative font
measurement (like em or percentage), or better, leave the default body font
size untouched -- you’ve already set the body font size to a percentage
value in your body { font-size } setting anyways.
Phil.
Hi Phil,
My philosophy on this is that the htmlbody is ignored by all except
IE6. so the decent browsers work properly (even IE7!), so I'm hoping
that IE7 soon becomes the common IE.
Maybe I'm being optimistic, esp in view of the apparent contradiction of
my supporting NS4.02! Of course, I'm not actually ignoring IE6, just
not 'allowing' users to resize the text- a feature which, one assumes,
they are well used to! :-)
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote: ... the htmlbody is ignored by all except IE6 I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry) as it doesn't understand the '' selector. All other browsers, including IE 7 support the child selector. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote: ... the htmlbody is ignored by all except IE6 I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry) as it doesn't understand the '' selector. All other browsers, including IE 7 support the child selector. Philippe --- Thanks Philippe - yes it is a 'typo'. I did of course mean the other way around! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 04:19:38, Lucien Stals wrote: I in fact did quote the entire sentence. Yes, but you then dismissed the words controls and labels as being irrelevant. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. I leave it to others to debate the authority of the w3schools site, and it's a debate worth having. It has no authority whatsoever, and is generally an abysmal resource. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, They probably pedantically drive on the correct side of the road and pedantically stop at red lights, too. But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. That's not what the spec says; it describes div as a generic mechanism for adding structure to a document. It then gives an example of using div (and span) to provide structure to thematically- related information whose elements' semantics are not explicitly identifiable by other HTML elements: http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-DIV To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. What is obvious about using it in a way that directly contradicts the defined purpose of it? But the original question wasn't about drawing a box. It was about how to group any sort of related information together. And I say a fieldset would work. It's not the only solution, but it's a valid one. And not just valid by the DTD. It's only valid by the DTD in the sense that the DTD is incapable of expressing all the constraints imposed upon the usage of HTML elements; those constraints are made explicit in the spec by such means as the sentence you originally quoted. I think it's semantically valid as well. It's semantically meaningless as a fieldset is meant to contain a thematically related set of fields, not a thematically related set of arbitrary textual information. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:09:44, Designer wrote: so the decent browsers work properly (even IE7!) This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't. The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with the other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust text size won't work. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Nick Fitzsimons wrote: But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Steady on, Nick. If he wasn't here you wouldn't be able to tell him this - it's exactly the right place for Lucien to be. ...and then later: It's semantically meaningless as a fieldset is meant to contain a thematically related set of fields, not a thematically related set of arbitrary textual information. Exactly. Lucien: I understand you like the semantic idea of 'set' - but 'fields' are a pretty specific notion. If you like having tags describing 'a thing containing other things', that's a given with any block-level element in SGML - so don't worry about it, it's prety obvious to a deceased squirrel foetus that a div containing objects is containing objects, and that those objects could be described as 'the set of objects sharing that parent'. Back to fields however: 18. Computers. a. one or more related characters treated as a unit and constituting part of a record, for purposes of input, processing, output, or storage by a computer: If the hours-worked field is blank or zero, the program does not write a check for that employee. b. (in a punch card) any number of columns regularly used for recording the same information. I lifted this off dictionary.com. It fails to mention that this is an attitude that reigns outside of computers and has long been established in paper-based bureaucracy - you fill in the fields of a form (i.e. 'What should I put in this field?'). Taking it out of that context is operating to standards of your own - perhaps fun as a one-person inside joke, but otherwise just baffling and needlessly convoluted. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
On 5 Jun 2007, at 14:57:44, Barney Carroll wrote: Nick Fitzsimons wrote: But there's then little point in communicating this fact to a list about Web Stanbdards, as you are clearly advocating something which is in breach of said standards. Steady on, Nick. If he wasn't here you wouldn't be able to tell him this - it's exactly the right place for Lucien to be. Yes, my apologies to Lucien and the list - that does come across as rather snarky, which wasn't my intention. (I misspelled Standards as well...) Blame it on a zealot becoming so wrapped up in pedantic argument that he fails to properly consider whether his words correctly convey his semantic intent :-) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Julie Watkins-Lyall is away from the office.
I will be out of the office starting 06/06/2007 and will not return until 07/06/2007. I will respond to your message when I return. If you require an urgent response, please call my mobile 0422917755. ** IMPORTANT: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Parliament. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Kick the auto responder on that persons email or ban them, it's becoming annoying now! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Designer Sent: 05 June 2007 19:08 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Designer wrote: Nick Gleitzman wrote: Barney Carroll wrote: ...a deceased squirrel foetus Wow. What an image. N ___ I wondered if you kept one on hand, in your office, for purposes of validation? I use it mostly for accessibility tests. The fur gets a bit greasy and matted occasionally and the smell's regretable - but I've been working with developers for so long now, I barely notice. Regards, Barney *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:15:39, Designer wrote: Nick Fitzsimons wrote: This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't. The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with the other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust text size won't work. Regards, Nick. Paul Novitski wrote few days ago, to point out a method which resizes the images as well as the text on page zoom. (using ems for the images). Good idea. So, I'm now curious as to why you think (infer) that IE's zoom (which does exactly that) won't replace text resizing? The only point I was making is that it is a fallacy to suggest that IE 7 treats text sized in pixels any differently to IE 6; they've just changed the effect of certain hotkeys to use the new zoom feature, but the menu's text size options will still have no effect. This means that a user who wishes to resize their text and automatically goes for the menu options will be out of luck with the specific example given. As the original poster seemed to believe that IE 7 would not have a problem with his pixel-sized text, I was just pointing out that it in fact would. To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera) means that you can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting anyone. Doesn't it? You can, and I can; but with the specific CSS on which I was commenting, a user who expected to be able to use the traditional menu options would be out of luck. Most users never explore new features; they tend to just do what they were taught by somebody else. I'm not arguing that IE (and others') zoom features are a bad thing - just pointing out that IE is still broken in its text sizing. Lots of people seem to think that the new feature fixes the old bug, but it doesn't. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] reading the spec [WAS: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?]
I know I said I didn't want to post to this again, but some points have been raised which I just can't help responding to. I am an advocate of standards. But the standards shouldn't be the first place we run whenever the way gets unclear. It's been said in this thread already that there are an awful lot of grey areas in the specs, and an awful lot of developers and designers out there trying to do just about everything imaginable with HTML, much of which is done with absolutely no regard for the specs, accessibility, or usability (and I get crucified here for merely wandering into one of the grey areas?). It should also be of no surprise that the original specs, when written, couldn't possibly predict the varied uses that HTML is now being shoehorned into. This is exactly why there is so much effort currently going on to come up with a new spec that will cope with the evolving nature and use of HTML. The shortcomings of HTML are self evident. Why else are we here trying to redesign it? So my question is: Is this group, as part of the Web Standards Group, about being visionaries and looking for ways to advance the use of HTML (and drag the specs along behind if necessary)? Or are we a bunch of conservative fundamentalists who believe the current specs are gospel and the anyone who doesn't *believe* should be cudgeled to death with them? To put it another way: Are we advocates for HTML, or for the specifications? And no, I'm not calling myself a visionary. But I'm inviting everyone here to be one, and not get stuck in the minutia of the specs, as if that all that matters. Lucien. Lucien Stals [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/06/07 6:52 PM On 6/5/07, Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps our debates would be kinder if we ruminated longer on our shared plight: abandoned on a barren planet with only fifty kinds of parts with which to build everything we need. Well said. In all a very insightful post. I agree, generally we're all trying to do our best with what we have. However, some of us are pedantic about using the most appropriate element possible while others are happy to use something that makes sense in their styling context. I think some of us (myself included) lose touch a little when we see someone do something differently to how we would, and start getting all high and mighty. In a way, it's so easy to do, because we are passionate about what we do. I think that's why we clash horns so often, because we do care. But so many developers don't care at all, so I think we should remember that we're generally on the same side on this list. Regards, Blake -- Australian Web Designer - http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] Recommended screen size document: was[EMAIL PROTECTED] received by: at:06/06/2007 10:16:35 AM * NSW Office of the Board of Studies Notice This notice is to inform you that as of 26/02/2007, the email address format for the Office of the Board of Studies has officially changed. For administration purposes, the old email address will be contactable only for a limited time. Please update your address book accordingly. * This email (including any accompanying documents) may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient any dissemination, copying or action taken in reliance on the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the email address or the telephone or fax numbers above. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
C'mon guys, we all know what the proper use of a Fieldset is. Does anyone feel that this is going on forever? So can we use it to group textual information? Of course we can. We can drive with our feet if we wanted to, doesn't mean its a good idea. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] AWIA - June Port80 Mini Talks
For Perth based Web Standards people this may be of interest. 6 June (Tonight) 18:00, talks start 18:30 The Velvet Lounge next to the Flying Scotsman pub in Mt Lawley (corner of Beaufort and Grosvenor Streets) and meet your fellow web professionals. There’s free food, a bar and each month we host two, ten minute talks from members on their area of expertise. This month’s speakers are: * Miles Burke on “Branding is Bullshit” * Stephen Clune on “Intellectual property” No need to register, just rock up and join in! The talk on IP and Copyright by Stephen Clune will especially be of interest as its always a hotly debated topic -- Gary Barber Blog - http:/manwithnoblog.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Jackie, you said I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tags etc churned out repeatedly down the page. Why not? It is clearly the most appropriate way to mark up that content. And what would the use of fieldsets change? You would still have the same quantity of markup except that it is less semantically accurate. You are suggesting that you would leave out the header elements but who would benefit from their omission or replacement with legends? It seems that you are searching for some kind of minimal markup without thinking about why you're doing it. How is a screen reader user going to understand the content of a page that just contains fieldsets and perhaps some paragraphs but no headers or lists? How are they going to navigate effectively though it? It's not just them either. Opera users who use keyboard navigation can also skip from header to header. And what about programmatic access by other software applications? They will not understand your personal definition of the semantic structure so they will view the entire page as one lump rather than numerous groups of related content. These are the kind of considerations that should drive your coding decisions. Mark up your content in a manner that is unambiguous to other users, and don't adopt a bizarre interpretation of the standards that no one other than a handful of 'imaginative' coders will understand. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jackie Reid Sent: 05 June 2007 06:35 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? Hi all respondees Ben Said ...it depends if you're talking about page layout or actual content - ie. is your business name, logo etc being used in a header; or are you creating a page which lists a bunch of businesses? For the former I'd simply use a DIV, for the latter a list (maybe a definition list). I am doing the latter.. (a page (or more) of business listings) so I was wanted an easy way to tie all the relevent information into one nice little block. As Lucien said the W3schools states that The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. with no mention of form controls and that's why I asked the question in the first place. It was a response to an is there a better way to do this sort of a moment! Also as Lucien said.. i didnt just want to draw a box visually around a bit of content.. i wanted to be able to clearly group the related information together neatly. I considered a DL but found it too restricting and I really didn't want a whole load of div classes with headers p tages etc churned out repeatedly down the page. It seemed to me that if the W3 schools definition of a fieldset was correct and valid then it was ideal for my requirements. The fact the validator passed it also seemed to me to say that it could be used in this way. If fieldset can't be used this way why does it pass validation? So... what to do? I dunno frankly... the jury is still out. I will say this though ...i think its a shame that when someone takes the time to respond to a question and states their point of view only to get shot down in flames and virtually abused. This list is here to enable us to discuss the implementation of webstandards amongst like minded people and I'm sure no one is really hell-bent on abusing the standards. Cheers Jackie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes documents more accessible. I think the first and last sentence make it clear that the intention is for fieldset to be used in forms. Although it does not explicitly say ...and nowhere else it's pretty clear where the writers *did* mean it to be used. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. A third party's description of the spec is not the spec; in discussions about the spec we have to go to the real source, not an interpretation of the original. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree with the concept of the semantic web. It's interesting to see where standards advocates call each other pedantic. Meanwhile the rest of the industry would consider pretty much everyone on this list to be pedants of the first degree because they care about standards at all. So realistically, application of standards has to be pedantic otherwise it's not application of standards at all - it's picking and choosing. Still, it cannot be denied that we get awfully bogged down in the minutiae sometimes :) But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. My opinion is that you are not free to do so. Fieldsets were clearly intended to be used in forms and the spec does not suggest using them anywhere else. You're using the absence of an explicit prohibition as permission. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
I can't generalise about screen readers, but JAWS would read the legend as if it were any other paragraph i.e. it would not differentiate it from the other text in the way it does with headers. The user may or may not work out for themselves that it is the start of a new section of content. JAWS' behaviour in 'forms mode' is moot because it can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. If there are no form controls it can't enter 'forms mode'. It could enter 'forms mode' if there are form controls elsewhere on the page, but that won't matter because in 'forms mode' the focus can only move between links and form controls so the legends won't be read unless there actually is a form control in a fieldset. The bottom line is that there will be no adverse behaviour but all the benefits of using headers (e.g. navigation and indication of structure) will be lost. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Buchanan Sent: 06 June 2007 02:28 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form? The FIELDSET element allows authors to group thematically related controls and labels. Grouping controls makes it easier for users to understand their purpose while simultaneously facilitating tabbing navigation for visual user agents and speech navigation for speech-oriented user agents. The proper use of this element makes documents more accessible. I think the first and last sentence make it clear that the intention is for fieldset to be used in forms. Although it does not explicitly say ...and nowhere else it's pretty clear where the writers *did* mean it to be used. For a comparison, the w3schools site defines fieldset as The fieldset element draws a box around its containing elements. And that's the complete sentence. Note no mention of form controls. A third party's description of the spec is not the spec; in discussions about the spec we have to go to the real source, not an interpretation of the original. I realise that many of the people here take pleasure in the pedantic application of standards, and I'll state for the record that I agree with the concept of the semantic web. It's interesting to see where standards advocates call each other pedantic. Meanwhile the rest of the industry would consider pretty much everyone on this list to be pedants of the first degree because they care about standards at all. So realistically, application of standards has to be pedantic otherwise it's not application of standards at all - it's picking and choosing. Still, it cannot be denied that we get awfully bogged down in the minutiae sometimes :) But I am a pragmatic coder and if I wish to group thematically related elements (*not* necessarily form controls), then I'm free to use the fieldset if I wish to. My opinion is that you are not free to do so. Fieldsets were clearly intended to be used in forms and the spec does not suggest using them anywhere else. You're using the absence of an explicit prohibition as permission. Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] What does Semantic mean?
Hi Ben and others, Here is my own bit of pedanticness... -- Lucien Stals Multimedia/Web Developer Academic Development and Support Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone: +61 3 9214 4474 office: AD223 On 6/06/2007 at 11:27 am, Ben Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure a DIV would work. But a DIV is void of semantic. It's the refuge of the unimaginative who want to wrap everything in excess tags with no semantic meaning just to hang CSS off. To me, a fieldset is obviously the correct semantic here. Well it has already been pointed out that DIV does have semantic significance - it adds structure by containing parts of the page. It's just used so heavily that we tend to forget it has a real, live meaning :) The only major difference between DIV and FIELDSET the way you propose is that FIELDSET renders a box by default. A DIV (and a SPAN for that matter) are purely structural, not semantic. The only difference between a div and a span is that one is a block level element, and the other is an inline element. Apart from that, they have the same semantic meaning, which is none at all. The specs say: The DIV and SPAN elements, in conjunction with the id and class attributes, offer a generic mechanism for adding structure to documents. These elements define content to be inline (SPAN) or block-level (DIV) but impose no other presentational idioms on the content. Thus, authors may use these elements in conjunction with style sheets, the lang attribute, etc., to tailor HTML to their own needs and tastes. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.5.4 And I quote that in it's entirety in case anyone else decides to suggest I'm trying to twist things to mean anything other than what they mean. The issue here is about the meaning of the word semantic. Semantics refer to the *meaning* attached to something. What is the meaning of a div? It's *use* is structural, but it's *meaning* is ... well, it doesn't have a meaning. Only by attaching meaning via a class or id does a div or span acquire meaning. If I code divsome text here/div, then I have an anonymous, meaningless block of text. If I changed the div to be a p, then it suddenly acquires a bit more meaning. It's a paragraph. A dictionary can explain what a paragraph means. If I add a class such that the code becomes div class=vcardsome text here/div, then I have also given it meaning. In this case, it means I have a microformat vcard entry and the information contained inside will be treated in a special (meaningful) way. It seems to me that many people here have different ideas about what semantic means. It would be helpful it we shared a common understanding in our conversations. I welcome, and invite, a *polite and professional* debate about the use of the term semantic as it relates to our work on the web. The use of something, and its meaning are not necessarily the same. To come back to the original discussion about fieldsets, everyone has made it very clear what the correct way to use them is, and I don't disagree with them. I'm not interested in their correct (as defined by the specifications) use. As far as I'm concerned, the use of a fieldset is to group form controls and labels. But the meaning is, as the w3schools site says, to group related content. This bings me to Bens next excellent remarks... A key point that doesn't seem to have come up is that in the real world screen readers make use of fieldsets in a way which assumes they're in a form. The legend can be vocalised together with labels to provide full context. Unfortunately I don't have a screen reader handy to test what it does with a fieldset that's not in a form; but I would be concerned that it could get really confusing for form elements to crop up in the middle of general content. I won't speculate any further, but if anyone has a screen reader handy, perhaps they could shed some light on this? I too would love to see the results of this experiment. Any takers? I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset Is perfectly valid, semantic markup which a screen reader would render just fine. But can I point out, Ben, that at no time did anyone ever suggest placing form elements in the middle of general content. I'm not sure where you got that one from. Regards, Lucien. PS: I'm planning on attending tomorrow nights WSG meeting in Melbourne. Can anyone advise me if I should bring a flame proof suit and a fire extinguisher with me? Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing,
Re: [WSG] Re: Use of Fieldsets other than in form?
Yes, I feel that way. It's like beating a dead...squirrel... Ely Solano wrote: C'mon guys, we all know what the proper use of a Fieldset is. Does anyone feel that this is going on forever? So can we use it to group textual information? Of course we can. We can drive with our feet if we wanted to, doesn't mean its a good idea. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
Lucien Stals wrote: I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset Is perfectly valid, semantic markup which a screen reader would render just fine. Logical, no doubt of it. But see Steve Green's post which said, JAWS ... can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. Does that mean that JAWS won't read the contents of the legend element because it's not in 'forms mode'? And if not, how important is it for clarification of what follows that the legend be read? If the answer to that is 'not', or 'optional', there's not much point in including it - is there? But can I point out, Ben, that at no time did anyone ever suggest placing form elements in the middle of general content. I'm not sure where you got that one from. I understood Ben to be referring to the fieldset element itself. But if a fieldset is a form element, and is used out of context of a form and its controls, then it *is* ...a form element cropping up in the middle of general content... - isn't it? Don't you just love circular arguments? Whoops, discussions? N PS Before anyone gets bent out of shape by minimal quotes from previous posts changing their context or meaning, can I respectfully remind them that the previous posts and threads are always there for refererence? ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
I too would love to see the results of this experiment. Any takers? I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset perhaps ... but for the purpose of marking up contact details in a meaningful way why not use hCard? http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard ...there are lots of other people already using hCard out there and there is software that can use it... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
-- Lucien Stals Multimedia/Web Developer Academic Development and Support Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone: +61 3 9214 4474 office: AD223 On 6/06/2007 at 1:25 pm, Nick Gleitzman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lucien Stals wrote: I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset Is perfectly valid, semantic markup which a screen reader would render just fine. Logical, no doubt of it. But see Steve Green's post which said, JAWS ... can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. Does that mean that JAWS won't read the contents of the legend element because it's not in 'forms mode'? And if not, how important is it for clarification of what follows that the legend be read? If the answer to that is 'not', or 'optional', there's not much point in including it - is there? Hmm. It's an interesting point. I'd still be curious to find out what does in fact happen. But if that's correct, then using the fieldset this way has no practical benefit for people using assistive devices. In which case we might be doing nothing more than drawing a pretty box around some text, which is a presentational issue best done with CSS anyway. I think it could still be of semantic use to sighted users. Lucien. Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Lucien Stals TEL;WORK:4474 ORG:;Academic Development and Support EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[EMAIL PROTECTED] N:Stals;Lucien END:VCARD *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
Maybe I used a poor example. Microformats would certainly be my first choice for this. I just wish there was *more* software that could use it. And a plugin to add microformat data into a groupwise client. That would be nice :) Lucien. -- Lucien Stals Multimedia/Web Developer Academic Development and Support Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn, 3122, Australia email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] telephone: +61 3 9214 4474 office: AD223 On 6/06/2007 at 1:47 pm, Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too would love to see the results of this experiment. Any takers? I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset perhaps ... but for the purpose of marking up contact details in a meaningful way why not use hCard? http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard ...there are lots of other people already using hCard out there and there is software that can use it... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Lucien Stals TEL;WORK:4474 ORG:;Academic Development and Support EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:[EMAIL PROTECTED] N:Stals;Lucien END:VCARD *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
JAWS reads legends in 'virtual cursor mode' and in 'forms mode' but it reads them differently in the two modes. In 'virtual cursor mode', which is the normal mode of operation for websites and PDFs, it will simply read the legend when it reaches that element. It does not announce the element type so it is indistinguishable from paragraph text. In 'forms mode' the legend is read before the label for each form control in the fieldset. If there are no form controls in the fieldset it will not get read at all. JAWS also does not handle definition lists at all well, which is one reason I oppose their use unless there is a very good reason for using them. Another reason is that although JAWS announces the start of a definition list, I have yet to meet a user who knows what one is. Unfortunately even the most recent version of JAWS does not announce the start of a new list item (i.e. a dt element), whereas it does announce each li in ordered or unordered lists. Worse still, it does not tell the user how many dd elements there are for each list item. The result is that the user cannot make any sense of the content because it is simply one piece of content after another with no indication of the structure. By contrast, a data table containing the same data is far easier to understand and to navigate because JAWS can read the row and column headers for a cell and can navigate both vertically and horizontally, which it cannot do with a definition list. From memory, Lucien's example would be read as: staff details Definition list of two items email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone 12345678 That is actually quite understandable even though JAWS cannot use any of the semantic structure that has been provided, but that may not be the case depending on the content. Of course one could argue that JAWS should handle definition lists better, and I would agree. I still say that the use of the fieldset it entirely wrong and that apart from the visual effect it provides no semantic value to any user agent. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Gleitzman Sent: 06 June 2007 04:26 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean? Lucien Stals wrote: I suspect that the following code... fieldsetlegendstaff details/legend dl dtemail/dtdd[EMAIL PROTECTED]/dd dtphone/dtdd12345678/dd /dl /fieldset Is perfectly valid, semantic markup which a screen reader would render just fine. Logical, no doubt of it. But see Steve Green's post which said, JAWS ... can only enter 'forms mode' when a form control has focus. Does that mean that JAWS won't read the contents of the legend element because it's not in 'forms mode'? And if not, how important is it for clarification of what follows that the legend be read? If the answer to that is 'not', or 'optional', there's not much point in including it - is there? But can I point out, Ben, that at no time did anyone ever suggest placing form elements in the middle of general content. I'm not sure where you got that one from. I understood Ben to be referring to the fieldset element itself. But if a fieldset is a form element, and is used out of context of a form and its controls, then it *is* ...a form element cropping up in the middle of general content... - isn't it? Don't you just love circular arguments? Whoops, discussions? N PS Before anyone gets bent out of shape by minimal quotes from previous posts changing their context or meaning, can I respectfully remind them that the previous posts and threads are always there for refererence? ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What does Semantic mean?
Well if we're going to talk about 'pedanticness' it has to be pointed out that there's no such word; the word you're looking for is 'pedantry'. On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:54:04 +1000, Lucien Stals [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ben and others, Here is my own bit of pedanticness... -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
