Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
On 7/3/07 11:23 AM, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Paul Wilkins wrote: You could try the FAQ. http://microformats.org/wiki/faq Where it says: Q. Given that Google now looks at hidden content as potential spam, will invisible microformats be considered spam? A. It is advisable not to hide information in your site, regardless of whether it is microformated or not. Microformats provide a mechanism for marking up visible content. Any mechanism for embedding invisible or hidden content risks being considered spam due to the fact that invisible (meta)data inevitably ends up being abused. Avoid invisible (meta)data. Publish visible data. FUD. Not FUD but based on examples publicly discussed and commented on by search engine company representatives (Google, Yahoo, Technorati, etc.). It would be reasonable (and certainly better for us) to have citations since these generalizations are based on events documented on the broader web. Will Google attempt to parse the complex interplay of CSS and (X)HTML for each page to determine if content is somehow hidden? No. Currently, the way it works is that somebody reports a page to Google, and their team investigates it (cfr the case of BMW in Germany a while ago). There's human judgement involved, and not an automated hidden = spam algorithm. Are you an employee for Google speaking authoritatively on Google's behalf? I've updated the FAQ to reflect that. I've reverted this assertion from the FAQ since AFAIK Patrick is not a Google employee nor speaking for Google. I've still seen no citation for any *prohibition* of hidden data in microformats... There is no prohibition per se, it is simply suboptimal behavior. Perhaps analogous to how there is no prohibition of putting aluminum cans in the garbage which is suboptimal compared to recycling them. Tantek ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility and human friendliness. One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing, why is it worth publishing? -Ben On 6/30/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several editors on Wikipedia are calling for the modification of the templates which implement microformat, to use hidden metadata. I thought there was a prohibition on hidden metadata in the specs, or at least somewhere on the wiki, but all I Can find now is: visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata on: http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles Can someone remind me what I'm missing, please? -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
Benjamin West wrote: http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility and human friendliness. One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing, why is it worth publishing? Because tools/extensions expose them to end users in a way that is far more user/human friendly than merely making the raw metadata visible. Whether or not authors forget to update the metadata, or purposely try to game it, if it's not visible is an authoring/policy issue, not a technical issue that should be solved by a language's specification (because some bad people tried to do bad things with it, we're just not giving you the opportunity, full stop). P -- 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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
RE: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
I've used some invisible data with micro formatting on Yahoo! pages.
Sometimes, you build a page a module at a time and you don't need to
visually repeat information in the microformatted module when it is present
elsewhere on the page. So, I use a class=microformatdetail
.microformatdetail {display:none}.
So, the answer is that I'm not trying to hide the information, I'm just
trying to avoid visual repetition without having to resort to the proposed
include pattern.
Ted Drake
Yahoo! Tech, Finance, Food, Answers, and soon European Finance...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott
Reynen
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 3:04 PM
To: Microformats Discuss
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
On Jul 2, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Benjamin West wrote:
http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility
and human friendliness.
One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing,
why is it worth publishing?
Because tools/extensions expose them to end users in a way that is
far more user/human friendly than merely making the raw metadata
visible. Whether or not authors forget to update the metadata, or
purposely try to game it, if it's not visible is an authoring/
policy issue, not a technical issue that should be solved by a
language's specification (because some bad people tried to do bad
things with it, we're just not giving you the opportunity, full
stop).
Microformats are built around an assumption of visibility, so if a
publisher doesn't want something visible, they probably don't want
microformats. It's tempting to argue about the virtues of
visibility, but I think it's ultimately a waste of everyone's time.
For those of us who value visible data, there's no shortage already
out there waiting to have microformats applied. And for those of us
who value invisible data, there are other formats better suited to
that than microformats.
Peace,
Scott
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
On 7/2/07, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benjamin West wrote: http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility and human friendliness. One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing, why is it worth publishing? Because tools/extensions expose them to end users in a way that is far more user/human friendly than merely making the raw metadata visible. Whether or not authors forget to update the metadata, or purposely try to game it, if it's not visible is an authoring/policy issue, not a technical issue that should be solved by a language's specification (because some bad people tried to do bad things with it, we're just not giving you the opportunity, full stop). P -- Patrick H. Lauke I'm not sure what you mean. We aren't talking about raw data. We are talking about data that has been marked up. In addition, no one has said there is some kind of mutually exclusive relationship between authors of visible vs invisible data. FWIW, nothing in microformats actually prohibits invisible metadata. It's certainly possible to set display:none. In fact, the phrasing quoted by Andy was visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata. -Ben ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing, why is it worth publishing? I can imagine Web designers wanting to associate invisible metadata with a button (that says Add to Calendar or Map), so that a microformat aware Web browser would detect the metadata and register down clicks on the button as acting on the metadata. This information would likely appear elsewhere on the page (probably also using microformats), but the button provides a visual affordance for the action. In our current designs, we are considering changing the mouse cursor when the user hovers over microformatted content, but that doesn't present the user with any indication that they can act on the data until after they have moved the mouse over it. So in this particular case, I think leveraging invisible metadata makes the interface more usable overall. -Alex On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Benjamin West wrote: http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility and human friendliness. One question invisible metadata raises is if it's not worth seeing, why is it worth publishing? -Ben On 6/30/07, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several editors on Wikipedia are calling for the modification of the templates which implement microformat, to use hidden metadata. I thought there was a prohibition on hidden metadata in the specs, or at least somewhere on the wiki, but all I Can find now is: visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata on: http://microformats.org/wiki/ microformats#the_microformats_principles Can someone remind me what I'm missing, please? -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
From: Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Benjamin West [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I thought there was a prohibition on hidden metadata in the specs, or at least somewhere on the wiki, but all I Can find now is: visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles Can someone remind me what I'm missing, please? http://tantek.com/log/2005/06.html#d03t2359 Principles of visibility and human friendliness. Thank you, but I was after something canonical, not an op-ed. Please don't top-post, and please don't quote sigs. Thank you. You could try the FAQ. http://microformats.org/wiki/faq Where it says: Q. Given that Google now looks at hidden content as potential spam, will invisible microformats be considered spam? A. It is advisable not to hide information in your site, regardless of whether it is microformated or not. Microformats provide a mechanism for marking up visible content. Any mechanism for embedding invisible or hidden content risks being considered spam due to the fact that invisible (meta)data inevitably ends up being abused. Avoid invisible (meta)data. Publish visible data. -- Paul Wilkins ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
[uf-discuss] Hidden metadata no microformats
Several editors on Wikipedia are calling for the modification of the templates which implement microformat, to use hidden metadata. I thought there was a prohibition on hidden metadata in the specs, or at least somewhere on the wiki, but all I Can find now is: visible data is much better for humans than invisible metadata on: http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats#the_microformats_principles Can someone remind me what I'm missing, please? -- Andy Mabbett ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
