Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
At the risk of getting this started up again... (I tend to read my WSG emails in a batch every day or so.) Mordechai Peller wrote on 06/12/2004 09:31:41 PM: If breadcrumbs show where you are in the site you get: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 If, on the other had, they show you where you've been, you get: Stop 1 Stop 2 Stop 3 Stop 4 Stop 5 Either way, the order describes a form of hierarchy. Not really. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 is a hierarchy because Level 3 is contained within Level 2, which is contained within Level 1, whereas the only connection between Stop 1, Stop 2 Stop 3 is that the user viewed the pages in that order. He/she could just as easily viewed them in the OPPOSITE order. Jonathan Cooper Manager of Information / Website Art Gallery of New South Wales Sydney, Australia http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs - slightly tangential
Mordechai Peller wrote on 06/12/2004 09:41:20 PM: Patrick Lauke wrote: ...and discussing the finer points of semantics in a markup language as coarse and unsuitable as HTML ends up being a tad futile Futile? Perhaps sometimes. Though I must admit, when there is a good reason to do so (what's a good reason is admittedly subjective) I find splitting hairs to be enjoyable. That reminds me of the Curator of Australian Art at the Art Gallery of NSW in the 1970s, Daniel Thomas, who was once accused of being terribly pedantic. To which he replied: No, not ... 'pedantic' exactly ... :-) Jonathan Cooper Manager of Information / Website Art Gallery of New South Wales Sydney, Australia http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Been following the breadcrumb (BC) discussion, and think it may come
down to defining the *purpose* of the BC. Through a process of
distillation I've arrived at the following conclusions;
The ('correct') semantic markup of a BC should be based on what the
BC primarily 'means'.
There is the distinction between BC as a presentation format
(navigation in a line suggesting a progression from left-to-right)
vs. BC-as-a-transcript (similar to the Back button) of the path the
specific user followed to reach this page.
Finally there is the companion term 'topic path'; often presented as
a breadcrumb, that show the current page in relation to an
information hierarchy or structure (the taxonomy defense).
More thoughts:
http://www.motive.co.nz/glossary/breadcrumb.php
asideSuggestions regarding additional glossary terms we should add
welcome/aside.
--
Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director
MOTIVE | web.design.integrity
http://www.motive.co.nz/
ph: +64 4 3 800 800 fx: +64 4 970 9693
mob: 021 369 693
93 Rintoul St, Newtown
PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand
**
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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 10:54:54 +1300, Andy Kirkwood | MOTIVE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Been following the breadcrumb (BC) discussion, and think it may come
down to defining the *purpose* of the BC. Through a process of
distillation I've arrived at the following conclusions;
The ('correct') semantic markup of a BC should be based on what the
BC primarily 'means'.
While the breadcrumbs discussion over the last few days has been
vaguely interesting - the long drawn out squabbling over semantics
reminds me why I don't bother following the Usenet HTML/CSS newsgroups
anymore! - I'd have to ask if breadcrumbs are really that important.
This is veering off-topic rapidly, but here's an interesting
discussion on real world data on the use of breadcrumb navigation
which suggests they're not utilised by most average users:
http://www.humanfactors.com/downloads/oct04.asp#kath
--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
**
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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
From: Natalie Buxton This discussion has finally convinced me that breadcrumb trails should not be marked up as lists. Without the entire path, it doesn't matter where the actual href goes. For instance: I tell a user that the file they want is in the folder widgets. They go looking for their file in c:/widgets. Because I neglected to tell them that they need to look in c:/stuff/widgets they are left confused and wondering what happened. Well, to me that reinforces the concept that ordered lists are appropriate. Again, in an ordered list, you can't really remove one of the items, particularly if the ordered list denotes a step-by-step process (such as how to get to the current page starting from the homepage). At the end of the day, it's a judgement call...and discussing the finer points of semantics in a markup language as coarse and unsuitable as HTML ends up being a tad futile, in my humble opinion... 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Kevin Futter wrote: Less important doesn't mean not important. Exactly, which is why I didn't say not important ... ...which is a reason why it is unlike a sentence. The words of a sentence need their organization within the sentence to be useful. You can slice it and dice it however you want, but 'order' does not mean 'hierarchy'. It certainly can, and it works with both type of breadcrumbs. If breadcrumbs show where you are in the site you get: Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 If, on the other had, they show you where you've been, you get: Stop 1 Stop 2 Stop 3 Stop 4 Stop 5 Either way, the order describes a form of hierarchy. Any given unit cannot exist in the same physical or virtual space as any other unit, so it has to displaced from them. This displacement has to be ordered, sometimes arbitrarily; the result is not necessarily a hierarchy, and it is folly to assume that it is so. By definition, breadcrumbs must have an order which either reflects the site informational hierarchy of the a visitor's route since arriving. Take away the order and what you're left with is just another navigation list. Which just goes to show that all breadcrumbs are is a navigation list in a particular order. Order is horizontal integration, hierarchy is vertical integration. As stated above, hierarchy is also an order. If you picture the structure of a site where depth is vertical and pages of equal depth are horizontally apart from one another, vertical is the only meaningful order you're left with. Perhaps, but Web standards semantics are not the same as linguistic semantics, and neither has much to do with the compressed meaning a single word can contain. When marking up a site, all you have to work with are words. How the words relate to their immediate neighbors as compared to the rest of the page are the only tools available to determine which tags would be semantically correct. Time to call a truce? I am unwilling to change my view as I've seen no reason to do so; in fact, I believe even more strongly now in what I'm saying that I did when this discussion began. If you want to leave it at that, I won't object (not that an objection would be worth much, anyway). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Patrick Lauke wrote: ...and discussing the finer points of semantics in a markup language as coarse and unsuitable as HTML ends up being a tad futile Futile? Perhaps sometimes. Though I must admit, when there is a good reason to do so (what's a good reason is admittedly subjective) I find splitting hairs to be enjoyable. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Mordechai, I too enjoy splitting hairs. I hope no one objects to my chiming in. Breadcrumbs are a construct without a solid definition, from which I think much disagreement arises. Typically, they reflect the notional path to a page (the path according to where the user believes themselves to be), although often they reflect the logical path (where the file is in the directory structure) or the historical path (where the user had gone to get to where they are). Historical paths are linear. The trouble with using ordered lists for them is not so much the semantics as programming: how do you recognize the difference between a click forward, then back to abort, then forward to the place the user intended, from an honest forward-back-forward to something else? Well, those sorts of breadcrumbs I find tedious because I've already got a back button and Amazon certainly is trying to patent The Page You Made anyway. Both logical and notional paths are derived from a hierarchal tree but are themselves linear. (Non-tree hierarchies are possible, with non-parent/child cross-linking, but why confuse the discussion more?) Between the current node (the page) and the greatest ancestor node (the home page) there exists only a single path of nodes in a specific order. This lineage is, by definition, linear and ordered. This makes it a prime candidate for an ordered list; this is what ordered lists are. Many arguments in this thread used the words hierarchy and order and list to explain a problem that was really about completeness. Can an ordered list survive the removal of a member? Depends on the relationship between list items. A notional path certainly could survive such a removal; civilization does not collapse because our addresses on postal mail do not include the county even though they include the city and state. A logical path could not survive such a removal, any more than you could drive to California and enter Los Angeles before entering Los Angeles County. Does your lineage denote the next ancestor/descendant (i.e., parent/child) relationship? Or does it merely indicate an ancestor/descendant relationship? Is it notional or logical? Is it complete? These answers are about personal style and the intent of the breadcrumbs as a solution. The nature of the solution depends on your answers. However, the path is the order and not the items. -- Ben Curtis WebSciences International http://www.websciences.org/ v: (310) 478-6648 f: (310) 235-2067 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Well, I thought it was over, so I didn't send this link. But, since it's not quite, here's a link to several others that might interest some... http://user-experience.org/uefiles/breadcrumbs/ Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.301.598.3300 business phone +1.301.598.0532 fax +1.202.390.8847 mobile On Dec 6, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Ben Curtis wrote: Mordechai, I too enjoy splitting hairs. I hope no one objects to my chiming in. Breadcrumbs are a construct without a solid definition, from which I think much disagreement arises. Typically, they reflect the notional path to a page (the path according to where the user believes themselves to be), although often they reflect the logical path (where the file is in the directory structure) or the historical path (where the user had gone to get to where they are). Historical paths are linear. The trouble with using ordered lists for them is not so much the semantics as programming: how do you recognize the difference between a click forward, then back to abort, then forward to the place the user intended, from an honest forward-back-forward to something else? Well, those sorts of breadcrumbs I find tedious because I've already got a back button and Amazon certainly is trying to patent The Page You Made anyway. Both logical and notional paths are derived from a hierarchal tree but are themselves linear. (Non-tree hierarchies are possible, with non-parent/child cross-linking, but why confuse the discussion more?) Between the current node (the page) and the greatest ancestor node (the home page) there exists only a single path of nodes in a specific order. This lineage is, by definition, linear and ordered. This makes it a prime candidate for an ordered list; this is what ordered lists are. Many arguments in this thread used the words hierarchy and order and list to explain a problem that was really about completeness. Can an ordered list survive the removal of a member? Depends on the relationship between list items. A notional path certainly could survive such a removal; civilization does not collapse because our addresses on postal mail do not include the county even though they include the city and state. A logical path could not survive such a removal, any more than you could drive to California and enter Los Angeles before entering Los Angeles County. Does your lineage denote the next ancestor/descendant (i.e., parent/child) relationship? Or does it merely indicate an ancestor/descendant relationship? Is it notional or logical? Is it complete? These answers are about personal style and the intent of the breadcrumbs as a solution. The nature of the solution depends on your answers. However, the path is the order and not the items. -- Ben Curtis WebSciences International http://www.websciences.org/ v: (310) 478-6648 f: (310) 235-2067 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 9:31 PM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time to call a truce? I am unwilling to change my view as I've seen no reason to do so; in fact, I believe even more strongly now in what I'm saying that I did when this discussion began. If you want to leave it at that, I won't object (not that an objection would be worth much, anyway). OK, time to wrap this up methinks, as you seem to be getting a little testy here Mordechai (and I'm sure this issue's had more than enough air time now). By calling a truce I'm not asking you to change your mind, nor has that been my goal throughout this discussion. I need to state this plainly I think: I'm not against the use of lists for breadcrumbs, I think they're fine; I do however take issue with the notion that they are the only semantically valid approach. I too don't see any reason to change my views on this, which renders further discussion/debate kinda pointless. I respect your views on this issue Mordechai and you argue them well, and I apologise if I've antagonised you in any way, but at the end of the day it's better to 'agree to disagree' and move on to more fruitful discussions. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Richard Spence wrote: In my opinion a simple string of a/a would work just fine. The information that you are trying to display is not really a list. I strongly disagree. Breadcrumbs are most definitely a list of links; they're even normally represented as a horizontal list. A list, according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=list) is: A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other: a shopping list; a guest list; a list of things to do. Paul Farrell wrote: Am I correct in understanding that an ordered list is the best way of marking up a breadcrumb system that shows where a user has been ? As far as ordered or unordered goes, whether it shows where you've been or where you are, either is acceptable, though an ordered list is slightly better. Here's a couple of examples. The first uses borders for the arrows and works in IE6. The second uses generated content. http://testing.pellerweb.com/bclist1.html http://testing.pellerweb.com/bclist2.html ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
I asked this question on WSG before and there was some interesting options. http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg08838.html Regards Gavin ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 5:32 AM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Spence wrote: In my opinion a simple string of a/a would work just fine. The information that you are trying to display is not really a list. I strongly disagree. Breadcrumbs are most definitely a list of links; they're even normally represented as a horizontal list. A list, according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=list) is: A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other: a shopping list; a guest list; a list of things to do. Paul Farrell wrote: Am I correct in understanding that an ordered list is the best way of marking up a breadcrumb system that shows where a user has been ? As far as ordered or unordered goes, whether it shows where you've been or where you are, either is acceptable, though an ordered list is slightly better. Here's a couple of examples. The first uses borders for the arrows and works in IE6. The second uses generated content. http://testing.pellerweb.com/bclist1.html http://testing.pellerweb.com/bclist2.html ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** I don't buy the argument that breadcrumbs *have to be* structured as lists. Why? Because they're not a collection of loosely-related list items, like a shopping list or such; rather, a unit of breadcrumbs collectively delineates a *path* to a resource (without resorting to conventional OS-style paths). For me it's a subtle but important difference that allows either approach to work effectively. To take the 'breadcrumbs must be lists' argument to its logical extreme would see us marking up sentences as ordered lists, with individual words as list items, simply because each component has a relationship to its neighbours. I don't see any inherent semantic superiority in the list approach in this case. Perhaps the W3C needs to introduce a breadcrumbs element? Cheers, Kevin Futter -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 10:12 AM, Jonathan T. Sage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think for this argument, I would go towards the analogy of driving directions. 1.) Go to the Home page 2.) go the the sub-section etc. Just my thought. As for your comment about sentences as lists, everybody knows that a sentence isn't a list. It needs to be a graphic since it's really a diagram anyways, and the unimportant words don't even go on there. (if you're young enough not to understand what I'm refering to, consider yourself lucky! for those who care to know - http://www.geocities.com/gene_moutoux/diagrams.htm ) ~j I don't buy the argument that breadcrumbs *have to be* structured as lists. Why? Because they're not a collection of loosely-related list items, like a shopping list or such; rather, a unit of breadcrumbs collectively delineates a *path* to a resource (without resorting to conventional OS-style paths). For me it's a subtle but important difference that allows either approach to work effectively. To take the 'breadcrumbs must be lists' argument to its logical extreme would see us marking up sentences as ordered lists, with individual words as list items, simply because each component has a relationship to its neighbours. I don't see any inherent semantic superiority in the list approach in this case. Perhaps the W3C needs to introduce a breadcrumbs element? Cheers, Kevin Futter -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 ** ... everybody knows that a sentence isn't a list - this is a specious argument. Sentences can indeed be construed as a list, particularly those built with dependent clauses (true, this concept applies more readily to paragraphs). I'm not arguing that lists are not the way to go, merely that I don't see that approach as inherently superior, semantically, since the relationship between breadcrumb elements is not as compellingly list-like, and I'm beginning to understand why some are labelling lists as 'the new tables'. But like I said, I don't think either approach is inappropriate. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Kevin Futter wrote: I don't buy the argument that breadcrumbs *have to be* structured as lists. Why? Because they're not a collection of loosely-related list items, like a shopping list or such; rather, a unit of breadcrumbs collectively delineates a *path* to a resource (without resorting to conventional OS-style paths). No, they're not loosely related collection of items, they're strongly related, so all the more so they should be a list. To take the 'breadcrumbs must be lists' argument to its logical extreme would see us marking up sentences as ordered lists, with individual words as list items, simply because each component has a relationship to its neighbours. I don't see any inherent semantic superiority in the list approach in this case. A sentence isn't a collection of related item because each word is dependent on the rest of the sentence to give it meaning. In a list, while the list itself may impart context, each item otherwise stands on it's own. Adding or removing items from a list doesn't change the meaning of the list, nor its members. Adding or removing words from a sentence changes the meaning of the sentence to such an extent that it may make the sentence meaningless. As with words of a sentence, to a slightly lesser extent, so could be said about sentences of a paragraph. Also, while the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list, little or no meaning is imparted to its item. Change the order of the words of a sentence, not only can the sentence take on new meaning, so can its words. Perhaps the W3C needs to introduce a breadcrumbs element? In XHTML 2 there's a navigation list (nl). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
-Original Message- From: Mordechai Peller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 6 December 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs A sentence isn't a collection of related item because each word is dependent on the rest of the sentence to give it meaning. In a list, while the list itself may impart context, each item otherwise stands on it's own. Adding or removing items from a list doesn't change the meaning of the list, nor its members. Adding or removing words from a sentence changes the meaning of the sentence to such an extent that it may make the sentence meaningless. As with words of a sentence, to a slightly lesser extent, so could be said about sentences of a paragraph. Also, while the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list, little or no meaning is imparted to its item. Change the order of the words of a sentence, not only can the sentence take on new meaning, so can its words. Mordechai, according to your explanation a breadcrumb is not a list, as you cannot simply take any of the items out of a breadcrumb. Each item in a breadcrumb is closely related to the preceeding item. If you take one item out, the rest of the breadcrumb loses its meaning. For example: Home | News | Summary Here we are talking about a summary page in the news section. Easy to understand. Now let's take out the News breadcrumb: Home | Summary Suddenly your entire breadcrumb doesn't make sense anymore! I agree that a breadcrumb is not a sentence, but I do not think it is a normal two-dimensional list either, if you want to be absolutely correct. Here's a thought to chew on: what about making it a relational list? ul liHome ul liNews ul liSummary/li /ul /li /ul /li /ul Wohooo! Now we are going mad! ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Excellent discussion over at Simple Bits Simple Quiz: breadcrumbs - http://www.simplebits.com/bits/simplequiz/#entry634 Pretty much covers all the arguments. Natalie On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:56:50 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Mordechai Peller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 6 December 2004 11:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs A sentence isn't a collection of related item because each word is dependent on the rest of the sentence to give it meaning. In a list, while the list itself may impart context, each item otherwise stands on it's own. Adding or removing items from a list doesn't change the meaning of the list, nor its members. Adding or removing words from a sentence changes the meaning of the sentence to such an extent that it may make the sentence meaningless. As with words of a sentence, to a slightly lesser extent, so could be said about sentences of a paragraph. Also, while the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list, little or no meaning is imparted to its item. Change the order of the words of a sentence, not only can the sentence take on new meaning, so can its words. Mordechai, according to your explanation a breadcrumb is not a list, as you cannot simply take any of the items out of a breadcrumb. Each item in a breadcrumb is closely related to the preceeding item. If you take one item out, the rest of the breadcrumb loses its meaning. For example: Home | News | Summary Here we are talking about a summary page in the news section. Easy to understand. Now let's take out the News breadcrumb: Home | Summary Suddenly your entire breadcrumb doesn't make sense anymore! I agree that a breadcrumb is not a sentence, but I do not think it is a normal two-dimensional list either, if you want to be absolutely correct. Here's a thought to chew on: what about making it a relational list? ul liHome ul liNews ul liSummary/li /ul /li /ul /li /ul Wohooo! Now we are going mad! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Website Designer/Developer www.nataliebuxton.com ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 11:09 AM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Futter wrote: I don't buy the argument that breadcrumbs *have to be* structured as lists. Why? Because they're not a collection of loosely-related list items, like a shopping list or such; rather, a unit of breadcrumbs collectively delineates a *path* to a resource (without resorting to conventional OS-style paths). No, they're not loosely related collection of items, they're strongly related, so all the more so they should be a list. To take the 'breadcrumbs must be lists' argument to its logical extreme would see us marking up sentences as ordered lists, with individual words as list items, simply because each component has a relationship to its neighbours. I don't see any inherent semantic superiority in the list approach in this case. A sentence isn't a collection of related item because each word is dependent on the rest of the sentence to give it meaning. In a list, while the list itself may impart context, each item otherwise stands on it's own. Adding or removing items from a list doesn't change the meaning of the list, nor its members. Adding or removing words from a sentence changes the meaning of the sentence to such an extent that it may make the sentence meaningless. As with words of a sentence, to a slightly lesser extent, so could be said about sentences of a paragraph. Yes, breadcrumb elements are strongly related in exactly the same way that sentence elements (i.e. words) are; and sentences can be rendered with precise meaning even if some words are omitted (prepositions, conjunctions, most adverbs, many adjectives). You're chasing your tail here. Also, while the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list, little or no meaning is imparted to its item. Change the order of the words of a sentence, not only can the sentence take on new meaning, so can its words. This is true, and in my opinion only makes it more useful in a breadcrumbs context, as you can't arbitrarily move breadcrumb elements around or omit them without destroying the meaning of the whole, either. Perhaps the W3C needs to introduce a breadcrumbs element? In XHTML 2 there's a navigation list (nl). I did not know that - it sounds useful. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Kevin Futter wrote: Yes, breadcrumb elements are strongly related in exactly the same way that sentence elements (i.e. words) are; and sentences can be rendered with precise meaning even if some words are omitted (prepositions, conjunctions, most adverbs, many adjectives). Not at all in the same way. Each word in a sentence gets its meaning from the sentence, while with breadcrumbs its the list which receives meaning from the items. It's the commonality which the items bring to the list which gives the list meaning. Words of a sentence have no commonality outside the sentence. Removing any word from a sentence removes meaning from the sentence. Take His car, versus His blue car. The latter conveys more meaning than the former. A longer breadcrumb list may provide more information than a shorter one, but no additional meaning. This is true, and in my opinion only makes it more useful in a breadcrumbs context, as you can't arbitrarily move breadcrumb elements around or omit them without destroying the meaning of the whole, either. You can't change the order because it's an ordered list, but the order in which each item appears doesn't effect the meaning of the links. While its place in the order conveys additional meaning, the meaning of the link remains unchanged. A word outside a sentence is of little worth, however, the value of a link is unchanged irrespective of whether or not it's in a list. If I were to say blue, you would likely respond 'Blue what? because the word blue isn't useful on its own. On the other hand, the link http://www.somedomain.com/thispage.html; means the same thing wherever you encounter it. In XHTML 2 there's a navigation list (nl). I did not know that - it sounds useful. XHTML 2, imho, offers a lot more ability to convey semantic meaning to a document; it looks to be a major step forward. Too bad IE won't support it until version 10. :-D -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Mordechai, according to your explanation a breadcrumb is not a list, as you cannot simply take any of the items out of a breadcrumb. Each item in a breadcrumb is closely related to the preceeding item. Except I also said the order of an ordered list imparts meaning to the list. And sure you can take any item out; that's how it works: you pick out whichever link you wish to follow. If you take one item out, the rest of the breadcrumb loses its meaning. For example: Home | News | Summary Here we are talking about a summary page in the news section. Easy to understand. Now let's take out the News breadcrumb: Home | Summary Suddenly your entire breadcrumb doesn't make sense anymore! I disagree; each link is just as meaningful as it was before. The list, however, conveys less information. I agree that a breadcrumb is not a sentence, but I do not think it is a normal two-dimensional list either, if you want to be absolutely correct. List aren't two-dimensional, they're one-dimensional, but bent through two dimensions. Just as the surface of a ball is only two-dimensional, yet it's bent into three dimensions. Here's a thought to chew on: what about making it a relational list? ul liHome ul liNews ul liSummary/li /ul /li /ul /li /ul The extra meaning which your construct is trying to convey can be just as effectively conveyed by the order of an ordered list. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 12/5/04 7:53 PM Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out: List aren't two-dimensional, they're one-dimensional, but bent through two dimensions. Just as the surface of a ball is only two-dimensional, yet it's bent into three dimensions. Home - News - Today's News - Summary Home - News - Today's News - Detail Home - News - Yesterday's News - Summary Home - News - Yesterday's News - Detail etc. If you leave any nodes out, you've lost your way. Rick Faaberg ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 2:23 PM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Futter wrote: Yes, breadcrumb elements are strongly related in exactly the same way that sentence elements (i.e. words) are; and sentences can be rendered with precise meaning even if some words are omitted (prepositions, conjunctions, most adverbs, many adjectives). Not at all in the same way. Each word in a sentence gets its meaning from the sentence, while with breadcrumbs its the list which receives meaning from the items. It's the commonality which the items bring to the list which gives the list meaning. Words of a sentence have no commonality outside the sentence. Removing any word from a sentence removes meaning from the sentence. Take His car, versus His blue car. The latter conveys more meaning than the former. A longer breadcrumb list may provide more information than a shorter one, but no additional meaning. I think we're crossing at talked purposes here. I see breadcrumbs as a complete unit - just as a file path is a complete unit; take out a component and you render it useless. The fact that each breadcrumb unit is hyperlinked to the resource it represents is less important in my view than the fact that they clearly show where you are in the document hierarchy. And therein lies the rub: lists are one-dimensional, as you yourself point out elsewhere; breadcrumbs attempt to represent a path across the document hierarchy, whereas lists imply, and are taken to imply, that each element exists on the same hierarchical plane. To me, they imply a semantic structure that is not consistent with what breadcrumbs are trying to achieve. A word outside a sentence is of little worth, however, the value of a link is unchanged irrespective of whether or not it's in a list. If I were to say blue, you would likely respond 'Blue what? because the word blue isn't useful on its own. On the other hand, the link http://www.somedomain.com/thispage.html; means the same thing wherever you encounter it. I disagree - there is profound meaning in a single word, but we're definitely off-topic for web standards now! But as I said earlier, I'm not so interested in the individual breadcrumb components, linked or not, as I am in the breadcrumb unit as a whole. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Rick Faaberg wrote: If you leave any nodes out, you've lost your way. That's because your missing information; however, each individual link is unchanged. Again, a word isn't very useful outside the context of a sentence, however a link is just as useful. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
I now need the semantic markup for the can of worms I've opened. ;) Rick Faaberg wrote: If you leave any nodes out, you've lost your way. That's because your missing information; however, each individual link is unchanged. Again, a word isn't very useful outside the context of a sentence, however a link is just as useful. ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
This discussion has finally convinced me that breadcrumb trails should not be marked up as lists. Without the entire path, it doesn't matter where the actual href goes. For instance: I tell a user that the file they want is in the folder widgets. They go looking for their file in c:/widgets. Because I neglected to tell them that they need to look in c:/stuff/widgets they are left confused and wondering what happened. This is the same with breadcrumbs. Leaving out any part of the path renders the visual trail useless. This leads me to the decision that the breadcrumb trail should be displayed as a sentance, with each relevent word linked. On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 06:35:14 +0200, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Faaberg wrote: If you leave any nodes out, you've lost your way. That's because your missing information; however, each individual link is unchanged. Again, a word isn't very useful outside the context of a sentence, however a link is just as useful. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Website Designer/Developer www.nataliebuxton.com ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
-Original Message- From: Kevin Futter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 6 December 2004 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs And therein lies the rub: lists are one-dimensional, as you yourself point out elsewhere; breadcrumbs attempt to represent a path across the document hierarchy, whereas lists imply, and are taken to imply, that each element exists on the same hierarchical plane. I completely agree with Kevin here. Breadcrumbs should be multi-dimensional, but sitting in a list they are not. The correct way of displaying breadcrumbs would most likely be nested lists. But we probably agree that that is a waste of time and going a bit too far. Personally I don't like treating breadcrumbs as normal text simply for the reason that I don't like putting seperaters in between the links that are read out by screenreaders. That's why I will probably stick to putting breadcrumbs into lists, not because it is semantically correct, but because I find it is an easy solution. ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Kevin Futter wrote: I see breadcrumbs as a complete unit - just as a file path is a complete unit; take out a component and you render it useless. Breadcrumbs and sentences are both whole units, but units of what? Since their component parts are of a different nature, the resulting mark-up should also be different. The fact that each breadcrumb unit is hyperlinked to the resource it represents is less important in my view than the fact that they clearly show where you are in the document hierarchy. Less important doesn't mean not important. And therein lies the rub: lists are one-dimensional, as you yourself point out elsewhere; breadcrumbs attempt to represent a path across the document hierarchy, whereas lists imply, and are taken to imply, that each element exists on the same hierarchical plane. Not ordered lists. The fact that they are ordered gives them a hierarchy. I disagree - there is profound meaning in a single word, Out side the context of a sentence you can't even tell what part of speech it is. Is rose a noun, verb, or adjective? The answer is it depends on the context. As Rose rose to pick the rose, she dropped her rose colored glasses. but we're definitely off-topic for web standards now! Perhaps, except semantics are important to Web standards. But as I said earlier, I'm not so interested in the individual breadcrumb components, linked or not, as I am in the breadcrumb unit as a whole. As sentences are made up of words, breadcrumbs are made up of links; the difference is in the value of the parts to the whole. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.6 - Release Date: 12/5/2004 ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
On 6/12/04 4:04 PM, Mordechai Peller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin Futter wrote: Less important doesn't mean not important. Exactly, which is why I didn't say not important ... And therein lies the rub: lists are one-dimensional, as you yourself point out elsewhere; breadcrumbs attempt to represent a path across the document hierarchy, whereas lists imply, and are taken to imply, that each element exists on the same hierarchical plane. Not ordered lists. The fact that they are ordered gives them a hierarchy. You can slice it and dice it however you want, but 'order' does not mean 'hierarchy'. Any given unit cannot exist in the same physical or virtual space as any other unit, so it has to displaced from them. This displacement has to be ordered, sometimes arbitrarily; the result is not necessarily a hierarchy, and it is folly to assume that it is so. Order is horizontal integration, hierarchy is vertical integration. Perhaps, except semantics are important to Web standards. Perhaps, but Web standards semantics are not the same as linguistic semantics, and neither has much to do with the compressed meaning a single word can contain. Time to call a truce? -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.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 **
RE: [WSG] Semantic Breadcrumbs
From: Paul Farrell Am I correct in understanding that an ordered list is the best way of marking up a breadcrumb system that shows where a user has been ? For my own part, I'd say yes (as the steps are in order, and the order is important)...but other people may have other ideas of what is best And that an unordered list is appropriate for a breadcrumb (for the lack of a more appropriate term) system that shows a users' position in relation to site structure ? Structure is still hierarchical, and order is important here as well as effectively you're representing a certain path, from the site's root, to the current resource...and each step here needs to be taken in that particular order as well. Unordered lists imply that their meaning won't change if their items are rearranged. Consider home products kitchen pots pans Would the meaning still be the same if we jumbled it up as kitchen products pots pans home ? In light of that, I'd say ordered in both cases. But, again, others may have a different view on the matter. 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Paul Farrell wrote: Gday, Am I correct in understanding that an ordered list is the best way of marking up a breadcrumb system that shows where a user has been ? And that an unordered list is appropriate for a breadcrumb (for the lack of a more appropriate term) system that shows a users' position in relation to site structure ? What are peoples opinions on this ? Are there better/more correct ways of doing this ? Which breadcrumb system is preferable in terms of accessability ? Regards Paul Farrell Hello, In my opinion a simple string of a/a would work just fine. The information that you are trying to display is not really a list. So a string of anchor links in a paragraph or span would work the best. I know that not everyone would agree with me here but this is just my opinion. Richard Spence ** 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] Semantic Breadcrumbs
Yeah, I think I am leaning that way. In my case I will be using a breadcrumb as 'Where You Are' rather than 'How You Got Here'. I maybe thinking along the wrong lines... But unstyled markup would appear more intuitive (to me) as a string of links separated, for example, by a '' symbol. I guess it may not be as correct as a hierarchical (spelling?) list, but I think it is an acceptable way of doing it. Thankyou all for your opinions. Hello, In my opinion a simple string of a/a would work just fine. The information that you are trying to display is not really a list. So a string of anchor links in a paragraph or span would work the best. I know that not everyone would agree with me here but this is just my opinion. Richard Spence ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
