Re: [whatwg] Should a figure element require a reference? (was: use cases for figure without figcaption?)
Hi Xaxio On 21 June 2013 15:59, Xaxio Brandish xaxiobrand...@gmail.com wrote: Steve, Please permit me to change the subject line since the topic no longer answers the subject question? thanks! The next sentence in the WHATWG spec [1] states The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, etc, that are *referred to from the main content of the document* (italics mine) It's true that there is no text saying that the figure element MUST be used a certain way, but there are two sentences saying how it typically or can be used, both implying a reference from a document. OK so 'typically' infers that figure is used in this way, from a recent review of data (June 2013 data set from http://webdevdata.org) on usage of figure it appears that it is typically not used in this way by authors. There are typically no explicit references to figure content. Here are some examples of pages using figure/figcaption. (also appears that figure is often used without figcaption: figcaption instances in sample of 53000 pages = 4603 , figure usage = 14609, indicating approx 1 in 3 uses of figure includes a figcaption) - Mirror Online http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ - Christian News on Christian Today http://www.christiantoday.com/ - Infonews http://www.infonews.com/ - Peru.com, http://peru.com/ - Computer Arts magazine http://www.computerarts.co.uk/ - Elle http://www.elle.it/ - NASCAR.com http://www.nascar.com/en_us/sprint-cup-series.html - Indiatimes: http://www.indiatimes.com/ - Bollywood Mantra http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/ - Teen Vogue http://teenvogue.com/ - Irish Independent http://www.independent.ie/ - bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/ - HELLO! Online http://www.hellomagazine.com/ - Mobile App Tracking http://mobileapptracking.com/ - Consumer Complaint Databasehttp://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaintdatabase/ - AS.com http://as.com/ One part of the ambiguity in the WHATWG spec comes from the examples given: 1) The first example uses figure as referenced from a document. 2) The second example is not referenced from a document. 3) The third example shows an image that is not a figure, followed by two pieces of media content that are within figure tags. The non-figure image could not be removed from its position in the document flow without changing the meaning of the document, so it is not used as a figure element. 4) The fourth example is not referenced from a document. 5) The final two examples are implied to be referenced from a document, and are semantically equivalent. Since we cannot know the surrounding document for examples 2 and 4, it seems that those examples take advantage of the open-ended adaptability of the unreferenced version of the figure element. agree that current examples are lacking and do not serve to illustrate intended use of figure/figcaption Part of the semantics of HTML come from *author intent* and *reasonable expectation*. If we see a table element, we can expect tabular data. If we see an li element, we can expect that it is one of multiple. see stats above, author intent in real world use does not appear to match expectations. for the majority of users the use of figure/figcaption makes not difference they don't even know its there. For users of assistive technology in combination with browser that actually map the figure and figcaption elements to something useful they are aware that the the content of the figure is a distinct group and hat the caption for the group is (if provided), the theoretical capability of figure to be moved away from its current position is just that. This leaves us with the question at hand: if we see a figure element, can we expect to find a part of the document from which it is referenced? Consider the following scenario: One is reading an online newspaper article. The article references Figure 1, located at the end of the article (and near the bottom of the page) due to readability constraints. We look at the end of the article, and see a figure with a caption Figure 1. The article then references Figure 2, so we look at the end of the article and see a figure with a caption, Figure 2. We arrive at the end of the article and see another figure with a caption, Figure 3. In the above scenario, Figure 3 is unreferenced. The first instinct when looking at an unreferenced figure (as used in the scenario) is to examine the figure to attempt to establish a context for it. Whether or not context is established, the second instinct is almost invariably to go back to the part of the article after Figure 2 was referenced in order to find out where we missed the reference to Figure 3. A third, slightly lesser instinct may even prompt a review of the entire article in an effort to find the missing reference. It is possible that the author of the fabled online newspaper article needed to use a
Re: [whatwg] Should a figure element require a reference? (was: use cases for figure without figcaption?)
Good morning Steve, (had to snip the message and resend, it went over the mailing list size limit) On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.comwrote: OK so 'typically' infers that figure is used in this way, from a recent review of data (June 2013 data set from http://webdevdata.org) on usage of figure it appears that it is typically not used in this way by authors. There are typically no explicit references to figure content. Here are some examples of pages using figure/figcaption. (also appears that figure is often used without figcaption: figcaption instances in sample of 53000 pages = 4603 , figure usage = 14609, indicating approx 1 in 3 uses of figure includes a figcaption) - Mirror Online http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ - Christian News on Christian Today http://www.christiantoday.com/ - Infonews http://www.infonews.com/ - Peru.com, http://peru.com/ - Computer Arts magazine http://www.computerarts.co.uk/ - Elle http://www.elle.it/ - NASCAR.com http://www.nascar.com/en_us/sprint-cup-series.html - Indiatimes: http://www.indiatimes.com/ - Bollywood Mantra http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/ - Teen Vogue http://teenvogue.com/ - Irish Independent http://www.independent.ie/ - bitbucket https://bitbucket.org/ - HELLO! Online http://www.hellomagazine.com/ - Mobile App Tracking http://mobileapptracking.com/ - Consumer Complaint Databasehttp://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaintdatabase/ - AS.com http://as.com/ I looked over the markup of several of the pages you listed here. I'm assuming that these represent a reasonable representation of widespread usage (no offense, please -- I didn't check the webdavdata data myself). These pages seem to use figure inside of an article (or equivalent) to place images related to the article, often linked to the extended text of an article on another page, but none of the figures are specifically referenced. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.comwrote: Part of the semantics of HTML come from *author intent* and *reasonable expectation*. If we see a table element, we can expect tabular data. If we see an li element, we can expect that it is one of multiple. see stats above, author intent in real world use does not appear to match expectations. for the majority of users the use of figure/figcaption makes not difference they don't even know its there. I think the question at that point becomes, *What value does the figure element add to its content if not referenced?*, especially since that seems to be the case a majority of the time. All of the images in the article are by default related to that article, since they are placed there. Even if real world data does not dictate it, we still need to maintain a level of reasonable expectation: one would *not* put an image or figure inside of an article that is not related to that article. Some of the pages you listed use figure and figcaption as a way to caption an image, but several of the pages don't even have captions (as you indicated, 1 in 3). The answer to the above question seems to be that the figure element doesn't add meaning at that point. One could encapsulate every img element in an article inside of a figure element, but what would be the point? We already know they're images, and we already know they're related to the article. The WHATWG HTML specification [1] currently says If a figure element is referenced by its relative position, e.g. in the photograph above or as the next figure shows, then moving the figure would disrupt the page's meaning. Authors are encouraged to consider using labels to refer to figures, rather than using such relative references, so that the page can easily be restyled without affecting the page's meaning. It seems that figure elements are often simply not referenced at all, not even relatively, which *seems* to be a misuse of the element as currently defined. figure elements are not required to be part of an article element, though that seems to be the largest use. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.comwrote: For users of assistive technology in combination with browser that actually map the figure and figcaption elements to something useful they are aware that the the content of the figure is a distinct group and hat the caption for the group is (if provided), the theoretical capability of figure to be moved away from its current position is just that. It is indeed theoretical, but part of the reason for the specification is provisioning for future and practical usage. Consider a search engine similar to Wolfram Alpha that would be happy to pull figure elements as being distinct groups. Alternatively, consider a page of stock indexes inside related articles that is visually organized in a nonintuitive way, where the markup contains the value of the stock inside figure, and the stock
[whatwg] Should a figure element require a reference? (was: use cases for figure without figcaption?)
Steve, Please permit me to change the subject line since the topic no longer answers the subject question? The next sentence in the WHATWG spec [1] states The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos, code listings, etc, that are *referred to from the main content of the document* (italics mine) It's true that there is no text saying that the figure element MUST be used a certain way, but there are two sentences saying how it typically or can be used, both implying a reference from a document. One part of the ambiguity in the WHATWG spec comes from the examples given: 1) The first example uses figure as referenced from a document. 2) The second example is not referenced from a document. 3) The third example shows an image that is not a figure, followed by two pieces of media content that are within figure tags. The non-figure image could not be removed from its position in the document flow without changing the meaning of the document, so it is not used as a figure element. 4) The fourth example is not referenced from a document. 5) The final two examples are implied to be referenced from a document, and are semantically equivalent. Since we cannot know the surrounding document for examples 2 and 4, it seems that those examples take advantage of the open-ended adaptability of the unreferenced version of the figure element. Part of the semantics of HTML come from *author intent* and *reasonable expectation*. If we see a table element, we can expect tabular data. If we see an li element, we can expect that it is one of multiple. This leaves us with the question at hand: if we see a figure element, can we expect to find a part of the document from which it is referenced? Consider the following scenario: One is reading an online newspaper article. The article references Figure 1, located at the end of the article (and near the bottom of the page) due to readability constraints. We look at the end of the article, and see a figure with a caption Figure 1. The article then references Figure 2, so we look at the end of the article and see a figure with a caption, Figure 2. We arrive at the end of the article and see another figure with a caption, Figure 3. In the above scenario, Figure 3 is unreferenced. The first instinct when looking at an unreferenced figure (as used in the scenario) is to examine the figure to attempt to establish a context for it. Whether or not context is established, the second instinct is almost invariably to go back to the part of the article after Figure 2 was referenced in order to find out where we missed the reference to Figure 3. A third, slightly lesser instinct may even prompt a review of the entire article in an effort to find the missing reference. It is possible that the author of the fabled online newspaper article needed to use a visible caption, and could not find a better element for the job than figure and figcaption. It is not obvious whether the article was edited incorrectly, whether there was a printing error, or whether the unreferenced figure was intended to stand alone. I propose that unreferenced figures set unreasonable expectation, as just described, and that either 1) more generic grouping content should be used to group unreferenced data with captions, or 2) a new element be created similar to label with an attribute similar to the for attribute that is not required to be located within a user interface such as form, or 3) a new set of elements similar to figure and figcaption be created to group unreferenced data. --Xaxio References: [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Steve Faulkner faulkner.st...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Xaxio, (and martin) i get why figure on its own is OK. I think that it's OK to use the figure/figcaption pattern on any image (for example) that the author wants to provide a caption for. The use case being: I want to provide some text as a caption for some other content. It is unclear to me (at least) whether the whatwg spec says that is OK or not. the latest (single page) whatwg spec says: The figure element represents some flow content, optionally with a caption, that is self-contained (like a complete sentence) and is typically referenced as a single unit from the main flow of the document. There is no normative text that says it MUST be referenced, only a non normative phrase typically referenced so that suggests to me that it is OK to use figure/figcaption for the use case i described and the one you described, but then the there is a lot of other descriptive text about figure that serves to befuddle my understanding. note: the whatwg spec and the w3c html spec which you referenced currently differ on figure, the proposed changes in the whatwg spec are under discussion in the html wg. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1
