On Mar 6, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
What I said was: WYSIWYG-only
users can't read code. Microformats without tools are
code. In my experience, WYSIWYG users who post code they
cannot read rarely get the outcome they desire. Authoring
Microformats with the intention that they be usable *as
code* to content authors *who cannot read code* is a pipe
dream.
Help me with this... How do I recognized these "WYSIWYG-only
users?" Are
they a certain color? Height? Or maybe they have barcodes on the
back of
their necks? Or can I just give them IQ tests to determine who
they are?
"Alt tags" :-)
Clearly my sarcasm drips... The point I'm making is that "WYSIWYG-only
users" exist because technologist think it is okay to implement
technology
that is complex and *requires* tools as opposed to first implementing
technologies that humans can deal with and THEN designing the tools.
Wrong. WYSIWYG-only users exist because there is a demand to publish
rich
content on the Web without requiring a new and most likely tangential
skillset
to those such users already possess (rhetoric, visual design, etc.). I
firmly believe that semantic HTML *should* be a core competency, but in
reality--today--it is not.
In my experience as an instructional technologist, semantic HTML
(including
microformats) work in a fundamentally different way than most people
think
about documents. These types of users want a word <b>bold</b>. In
order for
microformats to be effective for users with these interests, others must
develop rich tools. Without them, rich semantics will seem neither
necessary nor cost-effective.
What I think you're missing here is that microformats aught to be
designed
for humans *with certain skill sets* (the ability to read and write
HTML,
perhaps CSS) to easily understand (as opposed to say, WSDL). Profile
URIs
fulfill this requirement because they leverage an established (albeit
unused) semantic HTML construct. As conceived now, some type of
definition/versioning/disambiguation to microformats within the <body>
will require either:
* re-writing HTML semantics
* impinging upon the usability and design of a document (i.e. by
adding
extraneous links)
* adding invisible metadata (which violates the spirit of
microformats
and the semantics of <body>)
Although I'm sure then community is open to ideas if they solve these
problems.
I also think discussion of WYSIWYG-only users is fairly off-topic for
this list because their experience comes through a level of abstraction:
tool developers. We can continue that discussion off-list.
--
Ryan Cannon
Interactive Developer
MSI Student, School of Information
University of Michigan
http://RyanCannon.com
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
