RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Steve Green]

I agree that there may be a context in which it is an appropriate solution
but I don't think it is appropriate for the context of the original post.

Steve

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: 11 January 2008 19:19
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

> On Behalf Of Steve Green
> 
> I have a big problem with the term 'best practice', especially when it 
> is used to effectively terminate a discussion. It implies that not 
> only is there currently no better solution, but that there never will 
> be.
> I believe that the most appropriate solution invariably depends on the 
> context, and find that the principles of the context-driven school of 
> testing (my main profession) apply to most activities. the first two
> are:
> 
> 1. The value of any practice depends on its context.
> 
> 2. There are good practices in context, but there are no best 
> practices.
> 
> The rest are at www.context-driven-testing.com for those who are 
> interested.
> 
> As Chris has said, our context is usually that we have limited time 
> and are designing to provide the best user experience for people with 
> the user agents that exist now. If your context is that you have 
> unlimited time to create an academic solution for user agents that 
> should exist but don't, then it is very likely that you will come to a 
> different solution.

Hi Steve,
I'm glad to see that you seem to agree that a script may be a viable
solution and that using headings/paragraphs is not the only answer to this
problem.

--
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> On Behalf Of Steve Green
> 
> I have a big problem with the term 'best practice', especially when it
> is
> used to effectively terminate a discussion. It implies that not only is
> there currently no better solution, but that there never will be.
> I believe that the most appropriate solution invariably depends on the
> context, and find that the principles of the context-driven school of
> testing (my main profession) apply to most activities. the first two
> are:
> 
> 1. The value of any practice depends on its context.
> 
> 2. There are good practices in context, but there are no best
> practices.
> 
> The rest are at www.context-driven-testing.com for those who are
> interested.
> 
> As Chris has said, our context is usually that we have limited time and
> are
> designing to provide the best user experience for people with the user
> agents that exist now. If your context is that you have unlimited time
> to
> create an academic solution for user agents that should exist but
> don't,
> then it is very likely that you will come to a different solution.

Hi Steve,
I'm glad to see that you seem to agree that a script may be a viable
solution and that using headings/paragraphs is not the only answer to this
problem.

-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Designer]

Steve Green wrote:

I have a big problem with the term 'best practice', especially when it is
used to effectively terminate a discussion. It implies that not only is
there currently no better solution, but that there never will be.

I believe that the most appropriate solution invariably depends on the
context, and find that the principles of the context-driven school of
testing (my main profession) apply to most activities. the first two are:

1. The value of any practice depends on its context.

2. There are good practices in context, but there are no best practices. 


The rest are at www.context-driven-testing.com for those who are interested.

As Chris has said, our context is usually that we have limited time and are
designing to provide the best user experience for people with the user
agents that exist now. If your context is that you have unlimited time to
create an academic solution for user agents that should exist but don't,
then it is very likely that you will come to a different solution.

Steve 



Excellent words Steve, and an interesting link!  Hear hear!

Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Steve Green]

I have a big problem with the term 'best practice', especially when it is
used to effectively terminate a discussion. It implies that not only is
there currently no better solution, but that there never will be.

I believe that the most appropriate solution invariably depends on the
context, and find that the principles of the context-driven school of
testing (my main profession) apply to most activities. the first two are:

1. The value of any practice depends on its context.

2. There are good practices in context, but there are no best practices. 

The rest are at www.context-driven-testing.com for those who are interested.

As Chris has said, our context is usually that we have limited time and are
designing to provide the best user experience for people with the user
agents that exist now. If your context is that you have unlimited time to
create an academic solution for user agents that should exist but don't,
then it is very likely that you will come to a different solution.

Steve 

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: 11 January 2008 17:15
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> 
> >>> Because
> >>> like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to
> give
> >> users
> >>> of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a 
> >>> better experience too? Why just SR users?
> >> because thats a different issue. It's an issue of the user not
> upgrading
> >> to software thats available and thats better.  The issue we speak 
> >> of
> is
> >> the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves
> because
> >> there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can.
> >
> > User not upgrading to software that's available and that's better. 
> > Do
> you
> > think it's that simple?
> 
> no i don't
> 
> > Believe me, many people do not have that choice.
> 
> I know. But someone does. If i own a business and make my staff use 
> IE6 then thats my choice because theres something better out there - 
> my staff can't do anything about it but i can.

"upgrading" from IE6 to Firefox is *not* the same as trying to upgrade from
NN4 or IE5 Mac.
Usually, the latter requires investing money.

> Which is different to
> screen
> reader users who have up to date software that lacks some features.
> They
> have no choice to upgrade. Therefore they are a different group to the 
> users of the other UA's you mention. Therefore, it doesn't follow that 
> it's using the same logic if we use tables like you suggest.

Users stuck with old browsers face the same issue. But rather than being
their software that lacks some features it is their hardware (that don't
allow them to upgrade to a better UA).

> Although i applaud your commitment, I feel your approach is very 
> academic in nature. As someone who mostly earns their living by 
> producing websites for businesses, I feel that it's my job to do 
> whatever delivers the best user experience for the people who are the 
> end users of the site. And, although I firmly believe in adhering to 
> standards (why would I be here otherwise?), if that means using 
> heading and paragraph tags instead of dl's then so be it.

Do you mean Standards or best practice? I don't think Standards say to
replace DLs with headings/paragraphs and I hope best practice do not say
that either. If I think this approach should not be considered best practice
it is because I believe it is more a workaround than a real solution.

If you care about the end user then why not using the DOM to give SR users a
better experience? The same way we use CSS to give users of visual browsers
a better experience? To me, that would make more sense. 
If we say it is bad to use HTML for presentation (it would not be *visual*
in this case, but I think the issue is the same) then why making exception
for a particular UA? 

I posted a link to an article that shows how to turn a DL into headings and
divs, but you could try a simpler approach, using a script to plug headings
into the DTs or even replace the  with . None of this is
kosher, but it would only be generated markup, so I don't think it'd be a
huge issue compared to the benefits for SR users and the fact that the
document itself would be properly marked up (I didn't try this myself and
have no clue how it would work, but I think it is worth investigating).

> And I don't think
> it's
> right to use these client websites as a means to make a stand against 
> user agent vendors if it means sacrificing any of that usability.

I don'

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> 
> >>> Because
> >>> like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to
> give
> >> users
> >>> of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better
> >>> experience too? Why just SR users?
> >> because thats a different issue. It's an issue of the user not
> upgrading
> >> to software thats available and thats better.  The issue we speak of
> is
> >> the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves
> because
> >> there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can.
> >
> > User not upgrading to software that's available and that's better. Do
> you
> > think it's that simple?
> 
> no i don't
> 
> > Believe me, many people do not have that choice.
> 
> I know. But someone does. If i own a business and make my staff use IE6
> then thats my choice because theres something better out there - my
> staff can't do anything about it but i can.

"upgrading" from IE6 to Firefox is *not* the same as trying to upgrade from
NN4 or IE5 Mac.
Usually, the latter requires investing money.

> Which is different to
> screen
> reader users who have up to date software that lacks some features.
> They
> have no choice to upgrade. Therefore they are a different group to the
> users of the other UA's you mention. Therefore, it doesn't follow that
> it's using the same logic if we use tables like you suggest.

Users stuck with old browsers face the same issue. But rather than being
their software that lacks some features it is their hardware (that don't
allow them to upgrade to a better UA).

> Although i applaud your commitment, I feel your approach is very
> academic in nature. As someone who mostly earns their living by
> producing websites for businesses, I feel that it's my job to do
> whatever delivers the best user experience for the people who are the
> end users of the site. And, although I firmly believe in adhering to
> standards (why would I be here otherwise?), if that means using heading
> and paragraph tags instead of dl's then so be it.

Do you mean Standards or best practice? I don't think Standards say to
replace DLs with headings/paragraphs and I hope best practice do not say
that either. If I think this approach should not be considered best practice
it is because I believe it is more a workaround than a real solution.

If you care about the end user then why not using the DOM to give SR users a
better experience? The same way we use CSS to give users of visual browsers
a better experience? To me, that would make more sense. 
If we say it is bad to use HTML for presentation (it would not be *visual*
in this case, but I think the issue is the same) then why making exception
for a particular UA? 

I posted a link to an article that shows how to turn a DL into headings and
divs, but you could try a simpler approach, using a script to plug headings
into the DTs or even replace the  with . None of this is
kosher, but it would only be generated markup, so I don't think it'd be a
huge issue compared to the benefits for SR users and the fact that the
document itself would be properly marked up (I didn't try this myself and
have no clue how it would work, but I think it is worth investigating).

> And I don't think
> it's
> right to use these client websites as a means to make a stand against
> user agent vendors if it means sacrificing any of that usability.

I don't think that's what I said. I didn't say we should keep using DL to
force manufacturers to take care of the issue, I said why manufacturers
would take care of the issue if everybody stop using DLs? Which, imho, is
very different.

FWIW, if my approach when writing markup is pretty much UA agnostic, it is
because I rely on the two other layers to address issues.


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

>>> Because
>>> like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to give
>> users
>>> of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better
>>> experience too? Why just SR users?
>> because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading
>> to software thats available and thats better.  The issue we speak of is
>> the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves because
>> there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can.
> 
> User not upgrading to software that's available and that's better. Do you
> think it's that simple? 

no i don't

> Believe me, many people do not have that choice. 

I know. But someone does. If i own a business and make my staff use IE6
then thats my choice because theres something better out there - my
staff can't do anything about it but i can. Which is different to screen
reader users who have up to date software that lacks some features. They
have no choice to upgrade. Therefore they are a different group to the
users of the other UA's you mention. Therefore, it doesn't follow that
it's using the same logic if we use tables like you suggest.

Although i applaud your commitment, I feel your approach is very
academic in nature. As someone who mostly earns their living by
producing websites for businesses, I feel that it's my job to do
whatever delivers the best user experience for the people who are the
end users of the site. And, although I firmly believe in adhering to
standards (why would I be here otherwise?), if that means using heading
and paragraph tags instead of dl's then so be it. And I don't think it's
right to use these client websites as a means to make a stand against
user agent vendors if it means sacrificing any of that usability.


-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

David Hucklesby wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:13:13 +1100, Chris Knowles wrote:
>> because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading to 
>> software
>> thats available and thats better. ...
>>
> 
> Just one niggle here. "The user" might well be using a computer
> at work, school, a library, or an Internet café. What chance do these
> millions have of upgrading?
> 
> It *is* possible to conform to web standards *and* to write code
> that is accessible to a wide audience, as a great deal of Thierry's
> writing makes abundantly clear.
> 
> As an example, I work for a school district that still inflicts 
> Netscape 4 on its children. A clean, semantically marked-up plain
> HTML page with little or no styling should work fine for them, I hope.
> 

I'm not sure why you're quoting me out of context like this? I wasn't
suggesting writing  non-standards conforming, inaccessible code. And I
wasn't suggesting internet cafe customers or the schoolchildren you
speak of could upgrade their browsers. But the internet cafe and the
school could, but choose not to. Whereas the screen reader user with up
to date software that lacks certain support can't upgrade. Therefore,
those two groups are different, not the same as was suggested, which was
the only point I was making with that particular quote.

-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> 
> > No, what I'm saying is that we should write semantic markup and hope
> that SR
> > manufacturers fix their product asap.
> > JAWS, to name one product, is a very expensive software.
> Freedomscientific
> > should take care of its customers, it is not to the authors to lower
> the
> > quality of their documents to give SR users a better experience.
> 
> but I would call them your customers first, JAWS customers second  - if
> you can make their life easier, do it, then lobby the vendor and even
> notify the JAWS user of the issue so they can too

There is no issue if nobody use DL: and unfortunately that's where we are
heading with discussions like this one.
If using headings and paragraphs instead of DLs becomes "best practice",
then don't expect manufacturers to address an issue they keep on the back
burner for years already.

If you can read French you may want to read a discussion [1] I had with
people involved with the RGAA [2] a few months ago. They were about to do
just this, declare the use of DLs bad practice, for the same reason Steve
gives us here. 

> > Because
> > like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to give
> users
> > of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better
> > experience too? Why just SR users?
> 
> because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading
> to software thats available and thats better.  The issue we speak of is
> the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves because
> there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can.

User not upgrading to software that's available and that's better. Do you
think it's that simple? 
Believe me, many people do not have that choice. 

> > We have seen the same issue with acronym and abbr. Most authors are
> using
> > "acronym" *instead* of "abbr" for the only reason that IE is
> > ABBR-challenged, *not* because "acronym" is the proper element to
> use.
> >
> 
> sure, but IE is challenged in many areas so there are many ways we do
> things so they work in IE to make sure the end user is looked after.
> Are
> you saying we should not use any workarounds in the hope Microsoft will
> fix IE?

Which IE versions? For IE 5+ Win I'd say these workarounds involve the
presentational layer so there is no issue here really.
For IE5 Mac, I think table markup would give users a *better experience*. I
know that for people running OS 9, IE5 Mac is the best browser they can run,
but you're telling me there is no reason to take care of them because they
should buy a new computer and upgrade their browser...
And I'm not talking about NN4 users ;-)

> >> I would have thought take care of your users first and foremost and
> >> then
> >> lobby the vendors is a better approach.

I hear you. If you look at my articles, you'll see that I spend a lot of
time making sure they work in almost every possible browser. For example, I
have a pure CSS menu which is IE 5 Mac compatible. This is to say that
authors should focus on a web site as a whole and not be proud of themselves
just because they cheated with the markup in one document on their site to
give SR users a better experience.
How many authors talk about user experience, but have their layout break
apart in version 4 browsers or even in IE 5? When I say break apart I don't
even mean look bad, I'm talking navigation not being functional, text
overlapping, etc. I'm talking about sites not being ACCESSIBLE. 
A Definition List represents how many documents in a web site? And keep in
mind that a definition list is NOT inaccessible to screen reader users, it
is just not easy for them to make sense of it, which is - imho - a big
difference.

> > May be a better approach would be to use something like this:
> > http://tjkdesign.com/articles/best_practice/IamAScreenReaderUser.asp
> >
> > It takes care of the issue without cheating with the markup.
> >
> >
> 
> thats true and that solution is fine, but looking at the code, it seems
> to me you've gone to a hell of a lot of trouble - personally I would
> have just used different markup.
> But seeing as you've already written it, then it's a good solution.

The fact that I've done this proves that I was aware of the issue and ready
to spend some time to fix the problem rather than take a shortcut and cheat
with the markup ;)
 

[1]
http://rgaa.planete-accessibilite.com/discussion/15/point-de-controle-36-lis
tes-de-definition/
[2] http://rgaa.referentiels.modernisation.gouv.fr/


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> The desire for semantic purity is only one of many factors when
> deciding how
> to mark up a page. Other factors include (but are not limited to) UA
> support, the user experience, the time available to implement the
> design and
> the expected life of the website. I would expect a professional
> designer to
> balance these appropriately, taking into account the best interests of
> their
> customer.
> The ability to find the appropriate balance is what sets professional
> apart
> from hobbyists. It's easy to go to one extreme - it saves you having to
> think. Anyone can write semantically perfect code that validates if
> they
> don't care how long it takes, what the user experience is like and what
> it
> looks like in browsers that are not standards-compliant.
> 
> If you're designing your own site and you're on a mission to embarrass
> UA
> vendors into making a better product then go right ahead. But if you're
> designing websites for real people to use with real user agents, you're
> doing them a disservice. If you're being paid for that design I would
> say
> you have no right to follow your personal preferences rather than make
> a
> professional judgement, unless your customer has given informed
> consent.
> 
> The average life of a website is only a couple of years before it gets
> redesigned or scrapped. Designing for non-existent user agents is
> therefore
> futile because there's little likelihood they will come into existence
> within the life of such a site. To then make compromises that are to
> the
> detriment of existing user agents is absurd.


"The average life of a website is only a couple of years". That doesn't seem
much, where does it say that?
FWIW, mine is almost 6 years old... and I'm a web designer.

Also, may I ask you if you've ever thought of using a DOM solution to give
SR users a "better experience" instead of replacing every DL with headings
and paragraphs? Because, imho, that's part of the job too, assessing issues
and trying to come up with solutions that do not imply to cut corners. Isn't
progressive enhancement the real answer to this problem? 


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[David Hucklesby]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:13:13 +1100, Chris Knowles wrote:
>
> because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading to 
> software
> thats available and thats better. ...
>

Just one niggle here. "The user" might well be using a computer
at work, school, a library, or an Internet café. What chance do these
millions have of upgrading?

It *is* possible to conform to web standards *and* to write code
that is accessible to a wide audience, as a great deal of Thierry's
writing makes abundantly clear.

As an example, I work for a school district that still inflicts 
Netscape 4 on its children. A clean, semantically marked-up plain
HTML page with little or no styling should work fine for them, I hope.

Cordially,
David
--



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Steve Green]

The desire for semantic purity is only one of many factors when deciding how
to mark up a page. Other factors include (but are not limited to) UA
support, the user experience, the time available to implement the design and
the expected life of the website. I would expect a professional designer to
balance these appropriately, taking into account the best interests of their
customer.

The ability to find the appropriate balance is what sets professional apart
from hobbyists. It's easy to go to one extreme - it saves you having to
think. Anyone can write semantically perfect code that validates if they
don't care how long it takes, what the user experience is like and what it
looks like in browsers that are not standards-compliant.

If you're designing your own site and you're on a mission to embarrass UA
vendors into making a better product then go right ahead. But if you're
designing websites for real people to use with real user agents, you're
doing them a disservice. If you're being paid for that design I would say
you have no right to follow your personal preferences rather than make a
professional judgement, unless your customer has given informed consent.

The average life of a website is only a couple of years before it gets
redesigned or scrapped. Designing for non-existent user agents is therefore
futile because there's little likelihood they will come into existence
within the life of such a site. To then make compromises that are to the
detriment of existing user agents is absurd.

Steve

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: 09 January 2008 06:58
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

> Absolutely it is. I'm rather surprised at how badly they handle DLs, 
> but
almost zero percent of web developers use them even now (remember that
> standards-compliant designers represent perhaps 1% of the industry). 
> Go
back just a few years and no one at all was using them.
 
> Is it not also the responsibility of designers to design for the user
agents that actually exist rather than utopian user agents that do not
exist?
> After all, the WCAG make several references to "Until user agents..."
which explicitly acknowledges that user agents don't yet have all the 
> functionality that users need. In fact they never will because
expectations will change over time.
 
> In another document that I can't currently find, the W3C state that it 
> is
necessary for designers, user agent vendors and the standards themselves
> to all move together. There's no use one of these going off in their 
> own
direction at their own pace. It's never going to be possible for all of
> them to be exactly in sync but that's what we need to aim for while 
> making
progress in an agreed direction.
 
> I don't think that using headings in this example is cheating at all. 
> It's
perfectly valid as other people have suggested.
 
IMHO, the markup you suggested would be valid *only* if this succession of
name/value pairs was *not* considered as a list. If it is a list, then the
only proper markup is a list (imho). 

> Remember that the purpose of semantics is to convey information
effectively. There is no point in using them if they do not achieve that
goal. 
> If you care about the users you will provide semantics that 'are' 
> useful
to them, not semantics that 'should' be useful.
 
I think a DL is the element that would convey the information the more
effectively. And I guess that's why most of the posters who replied to the
OP before you did, told him to use a definition lists. Because for all these
posters it is the element they think would be the most semantic in regard to
that content; best proof (imho) that it should be the markup of choice. 

> Could you stand in front of your customer a justify your viewpoint to
them? I don't suppose they would be terribly impressed because they want 
> the best user experience for their customers. How can you 
> intentionally
deny them that?

The same way I tell them we should not use table for layout to please people
using old browsers. To me, it makes absolutely no difference. I think there
should be no double standards when it comes to UAs. If you think it is
important to not really "follow the rules" by using headings/paragraphs
instead of a DL to give SR users a better experience then let's say "bravo"
to table markup used for layout when it is done to increase user experience!

--
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Ca Phun Ung]

Tim MacKay wrote:


Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' 
list that goes a bit like this:


 


1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of 
customer focus...blah blah blah"


 


2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of 
customer focus...blah blah blah"


 



The critical detail here is "point-form". If we were to take away the 
bullet points what's left are standard headings and paragraphs. Hence, a 
definition list is not appropriate. The way to mark this up would be:



   
   Pursuit of customer satisfaction
  We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point 
of customer focus...

   
   
   Pursuit of customer loyalty
  We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point 
of customer focus...

   


Note: The  here is totally arbitrary, but do use the appropriate 
heading in your own code.


---

Ca Phun Ung
http://yelotofu.com




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

> No, what I'm saying is that we should write semantic markup and hope that SR
> manufacturers fix their product asap.
> JAWS, to name one product, is a very expensive software. Freedomscientific
> should take care of its customers, it is not to the authors to lower the
> quality of their documents to give SR users a better experience. 

but I would call them your customers first, JAWS customers second  - if
you can make their life easier, do it, then lobby the vendor and even
notify the JAWS user of the issue so they can too

> Because
> like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to give users
> of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better
> experience too? Why just SR users? 

because thats a different issue. Its an issue of the user not upgrading
to software thats available and thats better.  The issue we speak of is
the user unable to do anything about the situation themselves because
there is no better software, so we should look after them if we can.

> 
> We have seen the same issue with acronym and abbr. Most authors are using
> "acronym" *instead* of "abbr" for the only reason that IE is
> ABBR-challenged, *not* because "acronym" is the proper element to use.
> 

sure, but IE is challenged in many areas so there are many ways we do
things so they work in IE to make sure the end user is looked after. Are
you saying we should not use any workarounds in the hope Microsoft will
fix IE?

>> I would have thought take care of your users first and foremost and
>> then
>> lobby the vendors is a better approach.
> 
> May be a better approach would be to use something like this:
> http://tjkdesign.com/articles/best_practice/IamAScreenReaderUser.asp
> 
> It takes care of the issue without cheating with the markup.
> 
> 

thats true and that solution is fine, but looking at the code, it seems
to me you've gone to a hell of a lot of trouble - personally I would
have just used different markup.
But seeing as you've already written it, then it's a good solution.


-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> Absolutely it is. I'm rather surprised at how badly they handle DLs, but
almost zero percent of web developers use them even now (remember that
> standards-compliant designers represent perhaps 1% of the industry). Go
back just a few years and no one at all was using them.
 
> Is it not also the responsibility of designers to design for the user
agents that actually exist rather than utopian user agents that do not
exist?
> After all, the WCAG make several references to "Until user agents..."
which explicitly acknowledges that user agents don't yet have all the 
> functionality that users need. In fact they never will because
expectations will change over time.
 
> In another document that I can't currently find, the W3C state that it is
necessary for designers, user agent vendors and the standards themselves
> to all move together. There's no use one of these going off in their own
direction at their own pace. It's never going to be possible for all of
> them to be exactly in sync but that's what we need to aim for while making
progress in an agreed direction.
 
> I don't think that using headings in this example is cheating at all. It's
perfectly valid as other people have suggested.
 
IMHO, the markup you suggested would be valid *only* if this succession of
name/value pairs was *not* considered as a list. If it is a list, then the
only proper markup is a list (imho). 

> Remember that the purpose of semantics is to convey information
effectively. There is no point in using them if they do not achieve that
goal. 
> If you care about the users you will provide semantics that 'are' useful
to them, not semantics that 'should' be useful.
 
I think a DL is the element that would convey the information the more
effectively. And I guess that's why most of the posters who replied to the
OP before you did, told him to use a definition lists. Because for all these
posters it is the element they think would be the most semantic in regard to
that content; best proof (imho) that it should be the markup of choice. 

> Could you stand in front of your customer a justify your viewpoint to
them? I don't suppose they would be terribly impressed because they want 
> the best user experience for their customers. How can you intentionally
deny them that?

The same way I tell them we should not use table for layout to please people
using old browsers. To me, it makes absolutely no difference. I think there
should be no double standards when it comes to UAs. If you think it is
important to not really "follow the rules" by using headings/paragraphs
instead of a DL to give SR users a better experience then let's say "bravo"
to table markup used for layout when it is done to increase user experience!

-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

> Thierry Koblentz wrote:
> 
> > Isn't the responsibility of screen reader manufacturers to treat DLs
> for
> > what they are?
> >
> > Following this logic, we should be  using basic table markup for
> layout
> > to give people using old visual browsers a better experience.
> >
> > If we cheat with the markup to please user agents what's the
> incentive
> > for SR manufacturers to take care of the problem?
> 
> If I hear you right, you're saying we should write code that may
> disadvantage our users in the hope that it will influence how screen
> reader manufacturers build their software?

No, what I'm saying is that we should write semantic markup and hope that SR
manufacturers fix their product asap.
JAWS, to name one product, is a very expensive software. Freedomscientific
should take care of its customers, it is not to the authors to lower the
quality of their documents to give SR users a better experience. Because
like I said, following this logic why not using table markup to give users
of other UAs (old visual browsers like IE 5 Mac, NN6, etc) a better
experience too? Why just SR users? 

We have seen the same issue with acronym and abbr. Most authors are using
"acronym" *instead* of "abbr" for the only reason that IE is
ABBR-challenged, *not* because "acronym" is the proper element to use.

> I would have thought take care of your users first and foremost and
> then
> lobby the vendors is a better approach.

May be a better approach would be to use something like this:
http://tjkdesign.com/articles/best_practice/IamAScreenReaderUser.asp

It takes care of the issue without cheating with the markup.


-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Steve Green]

Absolutely it is. I'm rather surprised at how badly they handle DLs, but
almost zero percent of web developers use them even now (remember that
standards-compliant designers represent perhaps 1% of the industry). Go back
just a few years and no one at all was using them.
 
Is it not also the responsibility of designers to design for the user agents
that actually exist rather than utopian user agents that do not exist? After
all, the WCAG make several references to "Until user agents..." which
explicitly acknowledges that user agents don't yet have all the
functionality that users need. In fact they never will because expectations
will change over time.
 
In another document that I can't currently find, the W3C state that it is
necessary for designers, user agent vendors and the standards themselves to
all move together. There's no use one of these going off in their own
direction at their own pace. It's never going to be possible for all of them
to be exactly in sync but that's what we need to aim for while making
progress in an agreed direction.
 
I don't think that using headings in this example is cheating at all. It's
perfectly valid as other people have suggested.
 
Remember that the purpose of semantics is to convey information effectively.
There is no point in using them if they do not achieve that goal. If you
care about the users you will provide semantics that 'are' useful to them,
not semantics that 'should' be useful.
 
Could you stand in front of your customer a justify your viewpoint to them?
I don't suppose they would be terribly impressed because they want the best
user experience for their customers. How can you intentionally deny them
that?
 
Steve 
 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: 09 January 2008 05:21
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations



Hi Steve,

Isn't the responsibility of screen reader manufacturers to treat DLs for
what they are?

Following this logic, we should be  using basic table markup for layout to
give people using old visual browsers a better experience.

If we cheat with the markup to please user agents what's the incentive for
SR manufacturers to take care of the problem? 

 

-- 

Regards,

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com

 

 

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:19 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

 

I think that definition lists would be appropriate semantically but in the
real world I don't know of any user agent that does anything useful with a
definition list or any user group that derives any benefit from them.
Certainly they make no sense when read with a screen reader because you
cannot differentiate one list item from the next. I would therefore use
heading and paragraphs.

 

As ever, your decision depends on your motivation. If you care only about
semantic purity and don't care about the user experience, go ahead and use a
definition list. If you do care about the user experience, use headings.

 

Steve

 

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim MacKay
Sent: 09 January 2008 03:49
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' list
that goes a bit like this:

 

1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first guess would be
an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't really allow for it. A
definition list doesn't seem very appropriate either because of the
wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would only be a
few words. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 


***
List Guidel

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:

> Isn't the responsibility of screen reader manufacturers to treat DLs for
> what they are?
> 
> Following this logic, we should be  using basic table markup for layout
> to give people using old visual browsers a better experience.
> 
> If we cheat with the markup to please user agents what's the incentive
> for SR manufacturers to take care of the problem?

If I hear you right, you're saying we should write code that may
disadvantage our users in the hope that it will influence how screen
reader manufacturers build their software?

I would have thought take care of your users first and foremost and then
lobby the vendors is a better approach.

-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Karl Lurman]

> I don't think theres any rules about the length of definitions?

You are correct sir.

A definition list implies to me the expansion of a term through
definition. If anything that means the more text the better! I just
noticed that Tim's list includes numbering... This means there could
be some kind of ordering involved. Also, the quotes around his
definitions imply some kind of citation.

Perhaps something more like this:




Pursuit of customer satisfaction
"Quote"


...


But that is a lot of extra guff. Perhaps it could be as simple as:



   Pursuit of customer satisfaction
   "Quote..."

...


Like Steve says, each list item would not be read out (I believe even
the numbering) by a screenreader. Use of headers would probably be
more useful.

Karl


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

Unless order is important, I'd vote for a Definition List too

 

 

-- 

Regards,

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com

 

 

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim MacKay
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:49 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

 

Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' list
that goes a bit like this:

 

1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first guess would be
an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't really allow for it. A
definition list doesn't seem very appropriate either because of the
wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would only be a
few words. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Thierry Koblentz]

Hi Steve,

Isn't the responsibility of screen reader manufacturers to treat DLs for
what they are?

Following this logic, we should be  using basic table markup for layout to
give people using old visual browsers a better experience.

If we cheat with the markup to please user agents what's the incentive for
SR manufacturers to take care of the problem? 

 

-- 

Regards,

Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com

 

 

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:19 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

 

I think that definition lists would be appropriate semantically but in the
real world I don't know of any user agent that does anything useful with a
definition list or any user group that derives any benefit from them.
Certainly they make no sense when read with a screen reader because you
cannot differentiate one list item from the next. I would therefore use
heading and paragraphs.

 

As ever, your decision depends on your motivation. If you care only about
semantic purity and don't care about the user experience, go ahead and use a
definition list. If you do care about the user experience, use headings.

 

Steve

 

 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim MacKay
Sent: 09 January 2008 03:49
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' list
that goes a bit like this:

 

1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first guess would be
an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't really allow for it. A
definition list doesn't seem very appropriate either because of the
wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would only be a
few words. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Paul Minty]

Tim,
 
a definition list is called for. You can set it to be numbered in the
CSS.
 
You could also use headings and paragraphs (semantically it is the same
as we have a set of name-value pairs). You could also use a two column
table (name-value pairs).
 
cheers
Paul
 

Paul MInty Director

mintleaf studio 
We design & create stylish websites

Post: Box 6 108 Flinders Street Melbourne VIC 3000
Level 2 108 Flinders Street Melbourne
T. 03 9662 9344   
F. 03 9662 9255   
M. 0418 307 475
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
www.mintleafstudio.com.au   

 

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim MacKay
Sent: Wednesday, 9 January 2008 3:01 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] semantic list with explanations



Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point
form' list that goes a bit like this:

 

1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of
customer focus...blah blah blah"

 

2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of
customer focus...blah blah blah"

 

What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first
guess would be an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't
really allow for it. A definition list doesn't seem very appropriate
either because of the wordiness of the explanations; to me a true
definition list would only be a few words. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 



***
List Guidelines:
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

Steve Green wrote:
> I think that definition lists would be appropriate semantically but in
> the real world I don't know of any user agent that does anything useful
> with a definition list or any user group that derives any benefit from
> them. Certainly they make no sense when read with a screen reader
> because you cannot differentiate one list item from the next. I would
> therefore use heading and paragraphs.
>  
> As ever, your decision depends on your motivation. If you care only
> about semantic purity and don't care about the user experience, go ahead
> and use a definition list. If you do care about the user experience, use
> headings.
>  

or if it has a specific order, use headings and paragraphs inside an
ordered list

-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Steve Green]

I think that definition lists would be appropriate semantically but in the
real world I don't know of any user agent that does anything useful with a
definition list or any user group that derives any benefit from them.
Certainly they make no sense when read with a screen reader because you
cannot differentiate one list item from the next. I would therefore use
heading and paragraphs.
 
As ever, your decision depends on your motivation. If you care only about
semantic purity and don't care about the user experience, go ahead and use a
definition list. If you do care about the user experience, use headings.
 
Steve
 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim MacKay
Sent: 09 January 2008 03:49
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] semantic list with explanations



Hello all,

 

Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' list
that goes a bit like this:

 

1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction

"We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty

"We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer
focus.blah blah blah.."

 

What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first guess would be
an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't really allow for it. A
definition list doesn't seem very appropriate either because of the
wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would only be a
few words. 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Chris Knowles]

Tim MacKay wrote:
> Hello all,

>My first guess would be an ordered list but the definitions underneath don’t 
>really allow for
> it.

Why?

> A definition list doesn’t seem very appropriate either because of
> the wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would
> only be a few words.

I don't think theres any rules about the length of definitions?

If the list has a specific order, as you've shown, then I would say use
an ordered list, if not a definition list

-- 
Chris Knowles


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[E Michael Brandt]

Definition List for sure.


E. Michael Brandt

www.divahtml.com
www.divahtml.com/products/scripts_dreamweaver_extensions.php
Standards-compliant scripts and Dreamweaver Extensions

www.valleywebdesigns.com/vwd_Vdw.asp
JustSo PictureWindow
JustSo PhotoAlbum, et alia

--



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations

[Karl Lurman]

Definition List?

On Jan 9, 2008 2:48 PM, Tim MacKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Just looking for a little help. I'm creating a sort of 'point form' list
> that goes a bit like this:
>
>
>
> 1.   Pursuit of customer satisfaction
>
> "We promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer
> focus…blah blah blah…."
>
>
>
> 2.   Pursuit of customer loyalty
>
> "We promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer
> focus…blah blah blah…."
>
>
>
> What is the best way to semantically mark this up? My first guess would be
> an ordered list but the definitions underneath don't really allow for it. A
> definition list doesn't seem very appropriate either because of the
> wordiness of the explanations; to me a true definition list would only be a
> few words.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***