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 dt/dt with hx/hx. 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
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
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
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 dt/dt with hx/hx. 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
RE: [WSG] semantic list with explanations
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
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 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
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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join
Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations
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
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
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
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] ***
Re: [WSG] semantic list with explanations
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
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
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
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
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] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mintleafstudio.com.au http://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
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
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
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: ul li dl dtPursuit of customer satisfaction/dt ddqQuote/q/dd /dl /li ... /ul But that is a lot of extra guff. Perhaps it could be as simple as: ul li h2Pursuit of customer satisfaction/h2 qQuote.../q /li ... /ul 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 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
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 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 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
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 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
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: ol li h2Pursuit of customer satisfaction/h2 pWe promise to pursue customer satisfaction as our main point of customer focus.../p /li li h2Pursuit of customer loyalty/h2 pWe promise to pursue customer loyalty as our secondary point of customer focus.../p /li /ol Note: The h2 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] ***
