Re: [WSG] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Geoff Pack wrote: As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people. What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an useable if you want the list to be inline when styles are missing or turned off. Hi, I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not pipe separators are /visually/ clear in meaning--they, of course, are. When I see them, I know exactly what they mean; generally a separator for inline list items: Banana | Apple | Orange | If, however, I see them in an unstyled list (browser default for example), they carry much less meaning visually: * Banana | * Apple | * Orange | The items are already clearly delineated by the UA and the persistence of the pipes adds no semantic meaning--I don't even think it /looks/ proper at this point, but I digress. In either instance pipe separators have little to no meaning outside of a visual context, which by nature makes them presentational. As such it only makes good sense to leverage CSS, either through the use of background images or borders, to present this visual usability enhancement. I will continue to use visual cues like these myself, but will do so as semantically as possible. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Geoff Pack wrote:
> And what does a list really look like? Which of the following is more
> correct:
>
> My favourite fruits are watermelon, apples and bananas.
>
> My favourite fruits are:
> * watermelon
> * apples
> * bananas
>
> Answer: neither. They are both lists and both mean the same.
I think everyone would agree seeing both examples togteher, but what about
seeing the first one by itself.
And what if one can't make sense of the words? Imagine this:
Je lis Stendhal, le Rouge et le Noir.
Does this look like a list? It has the exact same construct and delimiters
("," and "and") as your example.
But it is not a list, and it could not be written like this:
Je lis Stendhal:
* le Rouge
* le Noir
So IMHO, the "look" does convey some info
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
> And what does a list really look like? > Which of the following is more correct: > > My favourite fruits are watermelon, apples and bananas. > > My favourite fruits are: > * watermelon > * apples > * bananas > > Answer: neither. They are both lists and both mean the same. what a list looks like or how you want a list to look are irrelevant in the context of this debate. also irrelevant is whether the pipe or vertical bar has accrued implied or associated meaning through (ab)use. semantic mark-up is about utilising the most appropriate tag available for a particular thing within the provided specification (X)HTML clearly provides the ... and friends for marking up a whole range of different list varieties. These should be used for any list, regardless of the desired visual style / whether CSS is on or off / whether the user is using a screenreader or not etc etc. end of story. Chris DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Geoff Pack wrote: Joshua Street wrote: Can you possibly ditch the un-semantic pipe separators (|) Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long history of being used in navigation menus, and definitely have meaning. They may be redundant here given that the grandparent marked up the menu as a list, but not un-semantic. I've come to believe pipe separators are non semantic in that they only provide presentational meaning. Technically speaking, adding a pipe to a list item makes the pipe /part of/ the list item rather than a type of semantic delineation. UA's (most if not all) already provide default delineation that clearly defines each list item. Any additional type of visual separation, is purely presentational and is probably best dealt with via CSS. -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
On 12/11/05, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but there are different degrees of ugly. I care because I occasionally > look at my pages on a PDA, and inline list work better for some things (esp. > navs) than bulleted lists. They are more compact and require less scrolling. > But you're right, neither is more usable than the other. > Well, CSS support on PDA's is slow in coming. This discussion has gotten to the point of preference rather than anything else, good points brought up and all. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Christian Montoya wrote: ... > - I don't care how a page looks with CSS off, as long as a list really > looks like a list And what does a list really look like? Which of the following is more correct: My favourite fruits are watermelon, apples and bananas. My favourite fruits are: * watermelon * apples * bananas Answer: neither. They are both lists and both mean the same. > - I don't think users care how a page looks with CSS off, since > technically it's all ugly when that happens Yes, but there are different degrees of ugly. I care because I occasionally look at my pages on a PDA, and inline list work better for some things (esp. navs) than bulleted lists. They are more compact and require less scrolling. But you're right, neither is more usable than the other. Geoff. ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
I thought this was a mailing list about web standards and semantics.
item 1 | item 2 | item 3
Doesn't mean anything semantically, it's telling me that their is a
paragraph with a bunch items in it and something called a pipe between
them, I don't know what a pipe is because I'm a blind musician looking
up new songs that I can busk down on Swanston Street. Where as:
item 1
item 2
item 3
Tells me there is a *list* of *items* in a *menu*. Now I don't really
care which way you do it because frankly both are going to work for most
people, however if you want to adhere to the semantic web then you
should build it the second way. Personally I think it looks better in an
when CSS is disabled.
Samuel
Geoff Pack wrote:
Samuel Richardson wrote:
Why are you using pipes in the first place? Why is a with
border-right : 1px solid black; styled on it and spaced out
with margins
and padding not sufficient? This smacks of using for layout.
Why? because it's more concise, uses less bandwidth, and looks the way I want
it to when CSS is off. And is no less correct.
This:
#menu li {display:inline; padding-right:0.5em; margin-right:0.5em;
border-right:1px solid #000;}
item 1
item 2
item 3
Or:
item 1 | item 2 | item 3
Geoff.
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
**
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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Samuel Richardson wrote:
>
> Why are you using pipes in the first place? Why is a with
> border-right : 1px solid black; styled on it and spaced out
> with margins
> and padding not sufficient? This smacks of using for layout.
>
Why? because it's more concise, uses less bandwidth, and looks the way I want
it to when CSS is off. And is no less correct.
This:
#menu li {display:inline; padding-right:0.5em; margin-right:0.5em;
border-right:1px solid #000;}
item 1
item 2
item 3
Or:
item 1 | item 2 | item 3
Geoff.
**
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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
We're arguing about the semantics of the word semantics. New record for WSG. ;-) On 12/12/05, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Christian Montoya wrote: > > If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you > > wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long > > history doesn't make them machine-readable. > > Well, I have heard what they sound like when Opera reads them out, which is > no biggie. And I wasn't implying that semantic = machine-readable. > > > Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > > Asterisks have a long history of being used to denote required form > > fields...but that doesn't make them semantic either. Just > > like the pipe > > separators, it's a case of a *visual* convention from the > > print world. > > They do not have meaning on their own, but their meaning has been > > inferred. The same inference happens when we used to use > size="+3"> instead of a proper or whatever to denote a heading... > > > Well, if it's a convention, then it *has* meaning. The question is then > whether the meaning is clear enough, to a wide enough selection of the > audience. With HTML, we can also ask if there is a 'correct' way to mark-up > the meaning. But incorrect mark-up != un-semantic in the broader sense, only > that the semantics of the contents do not match the semantics of the mark-up. > > For asterixes, the meaning is the same as a footnote: "see below for > clarification". It's a pre-web in-page hyperlink. On a web page you can make > the link even more explicit by adding an href to the footer text, but it's > not necessary because everyone already *knows* what it means. It is just as > semantic as writing 'required' next to a label (Required what?). The meaning > is the same. > > As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people. > What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an > unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an > useable if you want the list to be inline when styles are missing or turned > off. > > Geoff. > > > > > > > ** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ** > > -- Joshua Street http://www.joahua.com/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
On 12/11/05, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people. > What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an > unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an > useable if you want the list to be inline when styles are missing or turned > off. This is the second time I've heard this mentioned. I'm not sure how much we should care about how a page looks when CSS is off. Maybe that's a topic for another thread, but for now, I'll say: - acessibility vs. appearance = accessibility wins - I don't care how a page looks with css off, as long as a list really looks like a list - I don't think users care how a page looks with css off, since technically it's all ugly when that happens - inline lists aren't more usable than vertical lists, or at least there isn't any reason why the direction (horizontal or vertical) implies greater usability - there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to semantics. If we are willing to waste hours on superfluous graphics and neat page dynamic effects, typing the extra markup for a list isn't too much to ask. Besides, it's for the end user... who should be the most important consideration. this is all IMO, I guess, and I'm interested in hearing what others have to say. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Why are you using pipes in the first place? Why is a with border-right : 1px solid black; styled on it and spaced out with margins and padding not sufficient? This smacks of using for layout. Samuel Geoff Pack wrote: Christian Montoya wrote: If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long history doesn't make them machine-readable. Well, I have heard what they sound like when Opera reads them out, which is no biggie. And I wasn't implying that semantic = machine-readable. Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Asterisks have a long history of being used to denote required form fields...but that doesn't make them semantic either. Just like the pipe separators, it's a case of a *visual* convention from the print world. They do not have meaning on their own, but their meaning has been inferred. The same inference happens when we used to use size="+3"> instead of a proper or whatever to denote a heading... Well, if it's a convention, then it *has* meaning. The question is then whether the meaning is clear enough, to a wide enough selection of the audience. With HTML, we can also ask if there is a 'correct' way to mark-up the meaning. But incorrect mark-up != un-semantic in the broader sense, only that the semantics of the contents do not match the semantics of the mark-up. For asterixes, the meaning is the same as a footnote: "see below for clarification". It's a pre-web in-page hyperlink. On a web page you can make the link even more explicit by adding an href to the footer text, but it's not necessary because everyone already *knows* what it means. It is just as semantic as writing 'required' next to a label (Required what?). The meaning is the same. As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people. What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an useable if you want the list to be inline when styles are missing or turned off. Geoff. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ** ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Christian Montoya wrote: > If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you > wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long > history doesn't make them machine-readable. Well, I have heard what they sound like when Opera reads them out, which is no biggie. And I wasn't implying that semantic = machine-readable. Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > Asterisks have a long history of being used to denote required form > fields...but that doesn't make them semantic either. Just > like the pipe > separators, it's a case of a *visual* convention from the > print world. > They do not have meaning on their own, but their meaning has been > inferred. The same inference happens when we used to use size="+3"> instead of a proper or whatever to denote a heading... Well, if it's a convention, then it *has* meaning. The question is then whether the meaning is clear enough, to a wide enough selection of the audience. With HTML, we can also ask if there is a 'correct' way to mark-up the meaning. But incorrect mark-up != un-semantic in the broader sense, only that the semantics of the contents do not match the semantics of the mark-up. For asterixes, the meaning is the same as a footnote: "see below for clarification". It's a pre-web in-page hyperlink. On a web page you can make the link even more explicit by adding an href to the footer text, but it's not necessary because everyone already *knows* what it means. It is just as semantic as writing 'required' next to a label (Required what?). The meaning is the same. As for lists, the pipe separated menu list is perfectly clear to most people. What is missing is a clean way to mark it up with HTML. You could use an unordered list, styled inline, but that is overkill in many cases, and not an useable if you want the list to be inline when styles are missing or turned off. Geoff. ** 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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
On 12/11/05, Geoff Pack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joshua Street wrote: > > > > Can you possibly ditch the un-semantic pipe separators (|) and just > > use border-right:1px solid #000; on the elements? That would > > probably help... > > Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long history of being > used in navigation menus, and definitely have meaning. They may be redundant > here given that the grandparent marked up the menu as a list, but not > un-semantic. If you heard what pipe separators sound like in a screen reader, you wouldn't think they were semantic. Just because they have a long history doesn't make them machine-readable. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.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] Pipe separated lists (was: CSS foul-up in IE)
Geoff Pack wrote: Are the pipe separators really un-semantic? They have a long history of being used in navigation menus, and definitely have meaning. Asterisks have a long history of being used to denote required form fields...but that doesn't make them semantic either. Just like the pipe separators, it's a case of a *visual* convention from the print world. They do not have meaning on their own, but their meaning has been inferred. The same inference happens when we used to use size="+3"> instead of a proper or whatever to denote a heading... IMNSHO, of course ;) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
