Welcome to the list Peter!
On 5/17/06 6:31 AM, "Peter Krantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/17/06, brian suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is correct, what is your question? previously on the mailing list >> there was a discussion about screen readers reading out the TITLE >> attribute, which is not true. I believe what Brian meant to say is that there is an assumption (and has already been a discussion) about screen readers reading out the TITLE attribute AUTOMATICALLY, which is not true.[1] > Most screen readers I know of allow the user to expand > title attributes for abbr and acronym meaning that they replace the > actual content of the element. This is my understanding as well. > I have experience from working with > visually impaired users and most, if not all of them, use the expand > titles option. I would be very interested in seeing additional research/documentation on this topic. My personal experience in speaking with visually impaired users is different than yours, and it would be great to see some data on this, as so far all we have is anecdotal experience. > I do not feel that the title attribute is used correctly if you stick > machine readable datetime values into it. It is certainly a new usage, and thus there has been some (not much) resistance. There are several key points which make this ok and actually a good thing however: 1. This usage is constrained to the <abbr> element, this is not for the title attribute in general. (Some has asked/proposed using it also on <span> and other elements for expansions/alternate content, and that has been rejected). 2. The title attribute is still being used semantically correctly on the <abbr> element - as an expansion of the human readable/listenable contents. 3. Typical consumption of <abbr> marked up text by humans (whether sighted or not) uses the contents of the <abbr> element. 4. Using a full expansion of the datetime actually enables even *more* human friendly reading since scripts etc. are now able to localize the abbreviated datetime into whatever the user culturally prefers (since abbreviated datetimes are represented quite differently across different cultures). > If this is the designed way > to convey the information I think the hCalendar microformat will need > to be updated. Peter, while I certainly understand how this novel usage of the title attribute on the <abbr> element may cause some discomfort since it pushes the limits a bit, I would be very interested to know of any specific/concrete examples (real world, on the Web, with a URL) of any problems. One of the big differences culturally between microformats and other efforts is that we very much focus our discussions on concrete examples, and pretty much avoid wasting time on theoretical hand-wringing which otherwise dominates most other standards discussions. This too is a fairly different methodology (though actually much more "classically" scientific), so it is something to be aware of. I noticed that your about page is valid XHTML - well done. http://www.peterkrantz.com/about I encourage you to add hCard markup to the relevant contents of your about page and please share your experience. You may find the following document helpful: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-authoring Once again, welcome to the list, and thanks for your input. Tantek [1] http://www.sf.id.au/WE05/indexa.html#slide5 _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
