Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: This sounds like a good idea to me. First off 'irrelevant' is pretty hard to spell for non-native english speakers (go sweden!). Second, the elements are in fact relevant to the page since in all likelihood they will be used later. 'ignore' feels like a better description since it's weaker. We want to acknowledges the existance of the element, but tells you to not pay attention to it. Though I might be making making the last part up given that I fall into the first category :) I like ignore and omit as options. irrelevant is indeed awkward to spell. - Maciej / Jonas Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: From this thread, it seems like the true purpose of irrelevant is to add to HTML the logical equivalent of display:none in CSS. If that is true, then I'd agree with Jeff that renaming the attribute ignore or omit is a good idea. Can anyone either confirm or deny the purpose of this attribute as the following description: This attribute is used to indicate part of a document whose content is not considered primary to the page. In visual UAs, elements with this attribute are not rendered; in non-visual UAs, elements with this attribute are not read as part of the normal content flow. Thoughts? -Nicholas - Original Message From: Jeff Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nicholas C. Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED]; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:41:41 AM Subject: Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5] Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term irrelevant is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a way to say this is relevant only for non-visual UA's. Perhaps a better attribute name would be nonvisual? Unnecessarily suggests a particular medium of display; I suggest the shorter alternatives ignore(d) or omit(ted) if you really want the functionality. The biggest problem with the attribute is the spec doesn't sufficiently clearly describe the motivation for it; I suggest mentioning the preloading of iframes as such an example (they don't load/render if they're display:none, so it's either visibility:hidden (?) or launching the element into outer space offscreen with position/top/left), perhaps in an informative paragraph. Jeff Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like something to indicate that text should not be rendered by the UA but still remain accessible. Content that should be available to screen readers but not have a visual representation is, in fact, relevant. Indeed, which is why such content would not have @irrelevant set. It is content that should be ignored in all UAs would have @irrelevant set. At the moment AT generally tries to infer semantics from the presentation layer (this is display:none so it must be irrelevant), which is why hacks like the one you describe are needed. The irrelevant attribute allows these semantics to be encoded at the markup layer. The biggest problem I can see with this argument for @irrelevant is that it's not quite clear to how to get from where we are today (AT takes account of CSS CSS display properties rather than markup) to the behavior described above. If rendering display:none content that doesn't have the irrelevant attribute set results in a significantly worse web experience than not doing so then AT vendors will presumably be reluctant change behavior. We probably need some investigation into the effect that this change would have on the user experience for AT users. -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term irrelevant is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a way to say this is relevant only for non-visual UA's. Perhaps a better attribute name would be nonvisual? -Nicholas - Original Message From: James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 3:58:25 AM Subject: @Irrelevant [was: Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on HTML 5] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would like something to indicate that text should not be rendered by the UA but still remain accessible. Content that should be available to screen readers but not have a visual representation is, in fact, relevant. Indeed, which is why such content would not have @irrelevant set. It is content that should be ignored in all UAs would have @irrelevant set. At the moment AT generally tries to infer semantics from the presentation layer (this is display:none so it must be irrelevant), which is why hacks like the one you describe are needed. The irrelevant attribute allows these semantics to be encoded at the markup layer. The biggest problem I can see with this argument for @irrelevant is that it's not quite clear to how to get from where we are today (AT takes account of CSS CSS display properties rather than markup) to the behavior described above. If rendering display:none content that doesn't have the irrelevant attribute set results in a significantly worse web experience than not doing so then AT vendors will presumably be reluctant change behavior. We probably need some investigation into the effect that this change would have on the user experience for AT users. -- Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end? -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:54:08 +0100, Nicholas C. Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term irrelevant is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a way to say this is relevant only for non-visual UA's. Perhaps a better attribute name would be nonvisual? The attribute, as explained in the specification (maybe it's not clear enough?) is intended for dynamic applications where you already have sections in the page for several steps, but only one of those sections is currently relevant. The rest is marked irrelevant until the user completes some action. This is a totally different case from the one you seem to be worried about. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5]
From this thread, it seems like the true purpose of irrelevant is to add to HTML the logical equivalent of display:none in CSS. If that is true, then I'd agree with Jeff that renaming the attribute ignore or omit is a good idea. Can anyone either confirm or deny the purpose of this attribute as the following description: This attribute is used to indicate part of a document whose content is not considered primary to the page. In visual UAs, elements with this attribute are not rendered; in non-visual UAs, elements with this attribute are not read as part of the normal content flow. Thoughts? -Nicholas - Original Message From: Jeff Walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Nicholas C. Zakas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: James Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED]; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:41:41 AM Subject: Re: [whatwg] @Irrelevant [was: Re: Thoughts on HTML 5] Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: If the true purpose of the irrelevant attribute is to aid in accessibility, then I think the name is completely wrong. The term irrelevant is confusing because, as I stated before, why would anyone include content in a page that is irrelevant? What you really need is a way to say this is relevant only for non-visual UA's. Perhaps a better attribute name would be nonvisual? Unnecessarily suggests a particular medium of display; I suggest the shorter alternatives ignore(d) or omit(ted) if you really want the functionality. The biggest problem with the attribute is the spec doesn't sufficiently clearly describe the motivation for it; I suggest mentioning the preloading of iframes as such an example (they don't load/render if they're display:none, so it's either visibility:hidden (?) or launching the element into outer space offscreen with position/top/left), perhaps in an informative paragraph. Jeff Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
