On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 09:39 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > Ashley Sheridan wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 01:44 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > >> *haha* I've removed w3.org from the recipients list... so onwards to the > >> content below... > >> > >> > >> Jochem Maas wrote: > >> > Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef: > >> >> From the editor's draft: > >> >> > >> >> " > >> >> The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of > >> >> content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside > >> >> element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such > >> >> sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. > >> >> > >> >> The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or > >> >> sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other > >> >> content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. > >> >> " > >> >> > >> >> Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars, > >> >> advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often > >> >> represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often > >> >> represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is > >> >> fundamentally different. > >> >> > >> >> I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where > >> >> it says: > >> >> > >> >> BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!! > >> >> > >> >> An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the > >> >> spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the > >> >> information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense. > >> >> > >> >> I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description. > >> > > >> > as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the > >> > actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I > >> > really think this is too vague. > >> > > >> > the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too > >> > mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled > >> > HTML5 tags (not mention browser support). > >> > > >> > @Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a > >> > perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and > >> > semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather > >> > vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding) > >> > > >> > personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the > >> > various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that, > >> > as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream. > >> > > >> > As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly > >> > attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES > >> > (as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of > >> > building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general > >> > public. > >> > >> I can only somewhat agree with your assessment above. It is true that > >> while many people still use broken browsers like IE6 and IE7; however, > >> this should not completely dissuade us from improving the experience for > >> those users that *do* choose standards compliant browsers. If we ignore > >> those users because we don't see the point in wasting time on the IE* > >> crowd, then we essentially weaken the argument in favour of embracing > >> standards. While IE* Joe, doesn't give a damn about whether his browser > >> supports <aside> or not, studious Jane really enjoys the enriched > >> experience her browser provides because not only does it understand > >> asides, but it provides a convenient extra facility that extracts them > >> into a browsable list with excerpts taken from the surrounding text for > >> context (inverting the relationship :). Then there's Jenny who's blind, > >> she's listening to the content on the page and hears a little ding go > >> off that indicates there's further information available that she can > >> review-- she can choose to pull it up and listen to it, after which the > >> reader returns to where she left off the original content. Alternatively > >> she may choose not to interrupt the main flow of information, but again, > >> similar to Jane's experience she can listen to each one afterwards in a > >> summarized fashion. > >> > >> This is how serious organizations, and almost certainly Government, will > >> markup their information. Regardless of whether everyone has a browser > >> that supports the information. If the semantic markup improves usability > >> and enriches the information, then it will be used to meet that purpose. > >> > >> > PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy > >> > his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his > >> > argumentation and opinion! > >> > >> Thanks... You've got me blushing :D > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Rob. > >> -- > >> http://www.interjinn.com > >> Application and Templating Framework for PHP > >> > > > > I'd say that from what I've heard, Governments aren't that good at > > getting accessible sites up, so the chances of them using HTML5 > > semantically, well, the immediate future doesn't look too rosy! > > > > Also, I thought I'd throw in my tuppence as to the use of <aside>. I'd > > tend to try and relate it to a footnote in a book, or a boxout in a > > magazine article. It's not integral to the content it's related to or > > near, but acts as an aid to it should the reader wish. > > I don't know about where you are, but Canadian government has very > specific guidelines on how content should be marked up... and semantic > use of tags is a clear part of that: > > "The institution respects the universal accessibility > guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium's Web > Accessibility Initiative by ensuring compliance of its Web > sites with the Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints of the > Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG), with the > following exception: > > WCAG checkpoint 3.4 is superseded by requirement 2 of the > Common Look and Feel Standards for the Internet, Part 3: > Standard on Common Web Page Formats." > > http:// > > Reviewing some of the WCAG guidelines... > > 3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. > [Priority 2] > > 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and > use them according to specification. [Priority 2] > > 3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2] > > 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for > formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 2] > > 5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers. > [Priority 1] > > 5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels > of row or column headers, use markup to associate data > cells and header cells. [Priority 1] > > These are just the checkpoints, further reading into the checkpoints > indicates that proper use of various tags such as <em>, <strong>, > <abbr>, <acronym>, etc should be used. > > This is meant to be followed by all Canadian Government websites and > current hiring/contracting practices indicate experience with CLF2 > guidelines as being a requirement. > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > The good old UK, where the government is always a decade behind in the technology stakes. There are legal requirements for accessibility, of which semantics is a part, but often government sites seem to be some of the worst to access from anything other than the most particular of setups, ergo: Internet Explorer, Javascript turned on, colour monitor (which itself assumes you're not blind), keyboard & mouse to navigate (which assumes no motor difficulties). Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
