Re: [WSG] A rave about h1's
Peter Firminger schrieb: Yes it's quite legal but it's semantically poor. This is what information architecture is all about. h1 global section (logo, slogan, navigation, search etc.) h1 actual content section h1 optional section one h1 optional section two That is the structure I would like to use. Any thoughts? Does the title of a book have the same semantic meaning as a chapter title within it? No. One is a higher level of information. Just look at the table of contents in any book. All chapters are within the book and the book, in this case is the global section. A website is not book. It is different, it is not something you hold in your hands, it is more abstract. For me a headline introduces a section. Nothing else. It doesn't give sections meanings or relations to other elements, except other hn. Now global section could either be the site logo/name etc or it could be the title of the section of the site or even just the page title. Don't think of it as how you want them to display on the page. Use CSS to make them all look the same if that's your issue. This is about structure, not presentation. I'll admit that my example is not optimal. I'm talking about structure not presentation. The word global implies something like root, that's not what I wanted. Think of it the same way as a document tree, an XML structure or a nested list. K. [...] Let's put that into a real scenario. - h1Web Standards Group/h1 - H2ResourcesH2 - H3CSS Resources/H3 - H4CSS Selectors/H4 - H4CSS Specificity/H4 - H3HTML Resources/H3 - H4HTML Metadata/H4 My example: div class=section h1Web Standards Group/h1 h2Navigation/h2 ul ... li class=selectedResources/li ... /ul /div div class=section h1Resources/h1 h2CSS Resources/h2 ... /div Is this semantically false? The sections have no semantically relation te each other, they are separated, that's what I want. Of course you can see a relation between the selected item and the actual content, but that's you not the markup. For a machine they would be different equivalent sections. What do you think? If you don't use the H1 for the global section then they all move up one in the hierarchy and then H1 is correct for the section titles, but not the sub sections. Otherwise they wouldn't be sub sections at all. Ok, so it comes down to personal opinion what a section is? BTW: Can someone point me to a good book or resource about semantics? Thanks. Tonico * 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] A rave about h1's
James Ellis schrieb: Hi My thinking is that hN delineates headings of the same semantic weight (or groups content), be they styled by CSS like h4 class=failure/h4 or h4 class=success/h4 or not*: I agree. The difference being that h1 is the highest level of the headings in a document - there is nothing really that comes to mind that is higher up the tree in HTML. Hm, but in the real world there are often more then one highest elements. Like let's say two or more founders of the same company. Or two or more teams in a game? If there was one higher up the tree then using multiple h1s would be ok, something like the root/root element comes to mind -- leaving headings to be headings. My rambling has been discussed earlier within an XHTML 2.0 thread I think On this list? Tonico * 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] A rave about h1's
We could probably argue this back and forward, but I feel very strongly that there should be only one h1 on a page and it should be the page title. I used to think it should be the site name but am moving away from that stance now. To use your example of 2 company founders - there would always need to be a title above both founders: div id=content h1Company founders/h1 h2Joe Blog/h2 pBlurb about Joe.../p h3Joe's career highs/h3 pCareer blurb.../p h2Jane doe/h2 pBlurb about Jane.../p h3Jane's career highs/h3 pCareer blurb.../p /div div id=nav h2site sections/h2 ul lisection 1/li Etc... This has more meaning as the page TOPIC is introduced, then the sections are introduced. I would find it a little odd to jump straight into a series of founders without knowing that the page was ABOUT founders. As said on the list before, semantically correct markup can be argued about from many angles. :) Russ Hm, but in the real world there are often more then one highest elements. Like let's say two or more founders of the same company. Or two or more teams in a game? * 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] A rave about h1's
Tonico A website is not book. It is different, it is not something you hold in your hands, This very true and sometimes people with print experience still need to grasp it (sorry guys... you know who you are). However the reverse is also true. Programmers think in terms of modules (sections) and algorithms, but these become esoteric to the rest of us. I think that standards based development is the best chance we have to bridge these two worlds. The semantic standards are closer to how we think and read books, newspapers, and websites. In other word, gather information. This information standard needs to be maintained across all media so as not to leave anyone behind. Just my thoughts Leo * 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] A rave about h1's
On 19 Mar 2004, at 01:24, Jeremy Flint wrote: I do believe that he said officially, not really speaking for himself, but for the CSS community that supported that method as a whole. It was just a turn of phrase - using the language of specs and such like (and yes he did say those exact words), but really what he was saying was this: As of this day, I'm no longer gonna push FIR because frankly we opened a can of worms ... unless someone can figure a way to get those worms back in that can. Actually, it's probably better what he said ;-) Ian Lloyd ~ WEB: http://www.ian-lloyd.com/ | AIM: uklloydi Round-the-World trip blog: http://ianandmanda.typepad.com/ -- Disclaimer: I am currently travelling and connect to the Internet sporadically. As such, much of what I write offline may be days (or more) old when it gets sent, hence the content may have been superceded by other people's emails. * 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] A rave about h1's
From: Jeremy Flint [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I do believe that he said officially, not really speaking for himself, but for the CSS community that supported that method as a whole. rant Well...I'm part of the CSS community, and I was not consulted on this...so how presumptuous of him to officially deprecate it... I hereby officially deprecate the use of tables for layout, not really speaking for myself, but for the whole UK academic webmaster community that supported that method as a whole... so you see, my statement carries just about as much weight as his... /rant Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * 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] A rave about h1's
Tantek's site is not really his own design. Every few weeks he changes the visual appearance to look like one of the top 100 blogs - to show how their sites could look the same but have sound underlying structure. Can't remember who's visual style he has used at present... Russ Russ I already retracted the blog comment as ignorant stereotyping on my part. I have seen too many h1 used on blog though. Thanks for those links. They show that there is a valid alternative to this issue. Although I didn't find Tantek's site design very aesthetically pleasing, his all list design did inspired Pat Collins to show us how function and style can go together with lists replacing divs. Thans again for the links. I really learned something today. Leo On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 09:24 AM, russ weakley wrote: * 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] A rave about h1's
Right now he's working on Doc Searls' Weblog -- doc.weblogs.com. Tantek doesn't have a stylesheet switcher, but the older ones are listed as alternate stylesheets, so if you're using Firefox or something that lets you choose you can look at his previous recodes... Nate On Mar 18, 2004, at 3:11 PM, russ weakley wrote: Tantek's site is not really his own design. Every few weeks he changes the visual appearance to look like one of the top 100 blogs - to show how their sites could look the same but have sound underlying structure. Can't remember who's visual style he has used at present... Russ Russ I already retracted the blog comment as ignorant stereotyping on my part. I have seen too many h1 used on blog though. Thanks for those links. They show that there is a valid alternative to this issue. Although I didn't find Tantek's site design very aesthetically pleasing, his all list design did inspired Pat Collins to show us how function and style can go together with lists replacing divs. Thans again for the links. I really learned something today. Leo On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 09:24 AM, russ weakley wrote: * 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 getting help *
Re: [WSG] A rave about h1's
On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:35 PM, russ weakley wrote: While using multiple h1's are valid, you should also think about the underlying page structure - and think about how other devices will interpret this structure. Russ Your point is well taken and needs to be implemented more. There is a big difference between using an h1 for styling as opposed to semantic structure. My question is what to do about blogs? Their current design seems guilty in this respect. Leo * 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] A rave about h1's
At 07:35 18/03/2004 +1100, you wrote: I've been thinking about a post from a few days ago that has been bothering me. The comments in this post highlight the difference between valid markup and structurally-sound markup: Question: ...you have the headings of these as h1s I'm not sure if you should have more than one h1 a page? is that correct? Reply: You can have as many h1's as you want From a valid code point of view, this is correct. Your page can be littered with h1 elements. But what about from a document-structure point of view? I often wonder about the possibility that a page might need more than one H1. I normally think of H1 as the title of the document. But, web pages being what they are, sometimes there might be a heading down a page that seems to require as much weight as the initial H1. Technically this should be another document, but sometimes client specs don't tally ;) Even so, structurally speaking, what about headings in sidebars? If you use H2, H3, or something like that, when you run your page through the nice W3C document structure engine, it looks like your sidebar stuff is specifically related to your content with the H1 (depending on which order you've got your DIVs in, I guess). Should we use H1 for a sidebar, to demarcate it as separate in structural terms from the main content, and style it with CSS? Does this impact any lo-fi visual devices (i.e. H1 default size being too big for these lesser page elements)? I suppose this is where XHTML 2(?) comes in with its SECTION tag, which enables dynamic heading levels. Or does it? Are web pages still seen within the document concept, where everything in them is a singular entity - whereas in real terms, we have global page sections, like sidebars, that aren't necessarily related to our main content in any structural way. A related area is the use of the TITLE tag. If H1 = document title, what about TITLE?! I saw someone refer to the TITLE tag as H0, which is neat, except: should H1 contain the same text as TITLE? If not, what's the difference? Wow, I didn't know I had that many questions! ;) Gyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/ PGP key available * 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] A rave about h1's
At 07:35 18/03/2004 +1100, you wrote: I've been thinking about a post from a few days ago that has been bothering me. The comments in this post highlight the difference between valid markup and structurally-sound markup: Some more thoughts after a chat with a friend here: - Web pages can theoretically contain more than one document. Each document would have its own H1. - Therefore, in most pages, the TITLE would be the same as the H1 - unless there's more than one H1, in which case you'd have something like Three essays by George Orwell for the TITLE, and H1's for each essay. - Sidebars and their ilk would properly speaking need their own H1's (and possibly H2's). - In a sense, a H1 in a web page signals the start of a new document, or independent section of the page. I don't know how this tallies with XHTML 2 and the SECTION tag - anyone? Gyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/ PGP key available * 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] A rave about h1's
Sorry OT, but Jeremy is there anywhere I can find the keynotes to this statement. This is pretty big news, we all knew about the problems [http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fir/]but to officially deprecate! So which one [http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2003/12/12/accessible_i/index.php] do we now turn too? Or are we just going to fall into another trap? Ian www.e-lusion.com btw, Doug Bowman officially deprecated the Farhner Image Replacement at SXSW monday because of the inconsitencies it has with various screen readers. Jeremy Flint www.jeremyflint.com Leo J. O'Campo wrote: On Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 03:35 PM, russ weakley wrote: While using multiple h1's are valid, you should also think about the underlying page structure - and think about how other devices will interpret this structure. Russ Your point is well taken and needs to be implemented more. There is a big difference between using an h1 for styling as opposed to semantic structure. My question is what to do about blogs? Their current design seems guilty in this respect. Leo * 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 getting help * -- * 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] A rave about h1's
There are heaps of images-for-heading options described at this page that get around the problems associated with FIR: http://www.mezzoblue.com/tests/revised-image-replacement/ The FIR has been on the way out since Joe Clark wrote this: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/fir/ The big issue is display: none. A lot of the other methods do not use this, so they will not fail in assistive devices such as screen readers. The main method is to push the heading content outside the box that is displayed on the page. Can I put a plug in here for the Lindsay method - developed by Lindsay Evans (a WSG member). While his technique has issues (as all of them do), it does not actually hide the content, so it is not an issue for screen readers. http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/headings-as-images/index.cfm Anyway, best to choose a method that works for you based on your current circumstances. Russ On Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 09:44 AM, Jeremy Flint wrote: btw, Doug Bowman officially deprecated the Farhner Image Replacement at SXSW monday because of the inconsitencies it has with various screen readers. I'm a big fans of Doug, and have always avoided FIR, but the word officially here seems incorrect. He may have *publicly* deprecated (expressed disapproval of) FIR, but no one man can *officially* deprecate FIR -- it's just not within his power. My guess is that Doug never used the word officially, and I'd love to see a transcript of his presentation to read about this in context. My hope is that he not only deprecated (expressed disapproval of) FIR, but offered an alternative :) --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * Thanks Russ --- Russ Weakley Max Design Phone: (02) 9410 2521 Mobile: 0403 433 980 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.maxdesign.com.au --- * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
