4 ms·

I have the exact same issue. I find it much less semantic as well as less readable and maintainable to use abstract markup (i.e. div) everywhere. <div id="rant

by joshuak 13y ago

I have the exact same issue. I find it much less semantic as well as less readable and maintainable to use abstract markup (i.e. div) everywhere. <div id="rant"> Presumably the goal is to create a strong separation between layout/design and content as HTML is want to do. However, I don't agree with the premise that design is not content even in the context of translating 'content' to different display systems including for the visually impaired. A movie cannot be automatically retargeted to a blind person by just playing the audio, you must actually do the work translating it to a different form such as a novel, or scene descriptions read aloud. Sometimes as with say a Woody Allen film, you wouldn't miss much if you could only hear it, but something like 2001 wouldn't work so well. Like it or not the internet works exactly the same way, all 'content' does. Layout and design is content. </div>

ricardobeat 13y ago
It's not the exact same issue, it's the exact opposite. Using meaningful markup (not div) where it shouldn't exist is more harmful than the contrary. Not using tables for layout doesn't mean you can't use tables at all - use tables for tabular data. Ask a blind person how they feel about you not agreeing that they should have access to the same web you do. They actually do 'watch' movies and TV by audio only. A lot of information is lost, but it's better than nothing. And with a web page using correct markup, a good screen reader interface, and some practice, they can navigate and consume information much faster than we can visually.
- joshuak 13y ago
  I think we are agreeing, and I don't mean to spin up the same debates. I'm just saying that as it is html presumes that the important content is the text and throws everything else over the fence. It implies that you are done with translating for all displays if you just follow proper html best practices, when in fact you should consider targeting your content for specific displays in many cases. I absolutely did not say that a blind person should not have access to the web I said the opposite, a designer should be mindful of their various audiences and design for them purposefully and not expect that a file format can do that for them. I wish there where layout oriented and data oriented table tags, but there isn't so table gets used for both if you want anyone looking at the code to to get what you're doing. I also wish you could designate where the 'content' actually is sometimes its the text sometimes its the imagery sometimes its the layout. Then at least you'd be clear on where manual translation is required.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    The problem with that is that 99% of designers (or their boss) would not consider screen reader users as their audience. Designing purposefully for the visually impaired means using semantic markup, ARIA if needed, and being careful to offer annotations where content is mainly visual. Creating a separate experience would mean duplicating your whole site, and nobody would do it because of the cost - or even worse, create a limited, reduced version, like the mobile-specific sites with all their problems we all hate. It's a hard issue, but the goal of assistive technology is to include people with disability, not segregate. If you want to create a specialized version for them, by all means go ahead, but HTML and ARIA were designed with this goal in mind. I don't think there is a better tool for this. > I wish there where layout oriented and data oriented table tags [...] I also wish you could designate where the 'content' actually is That's where `display: table` comes in. New elements in HTML5 allow you to designate content, supporting text, images, navigation areas: main, article, nav, figure, aside, etc. This could already be done with ARIA "role" attributes in HTML4/XHTML.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  with a web page using correct markup, a good screen reader interface, and some practice, they can navigate and consume information much faster than we can visually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK1tlLOavvM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK1tlLOavvM <-- Léonie Watson, "Design like you give a damn: Practical accessibility for Web Pros" = very good talk, crucial crash course, and includes a great demonstration of the bit of your post I quoted :D
  - joshuak 13y ago
    Bingo! This Great talk! Slight left turn on the topic, but I think people can lose some elasticity in their thinking when they try to be politically correct. Accessibility implies impairment, but that can give you a mental model of "blind people are people too so we should be careful not to exclude them". But that's bottom up thinking you should be thinking what is possible, or top down thinking. The mental model is completely different if you take political correctness out of the equation. What if we are talking about a person driving a car using a web interface? Now the user can't see because of a situational limitation not a physical one. There is no need for the implication of sympathy. It's inspiring to me to design for any IO method I can think of. Aiding accessibility is useful to everyone, but I call that user experience and usability. This is why I get bent on some of the thinking behind HTML. Design, to me, isn't a second class citizen when communicating with your user/audience. New devices show the same information but did we just use the same html and css no we reformatted for the devices. What about when we are all using google glass and web enabled watches? Granted many web pages that where redesigned for 'mobile' would have done better to leave well enough alone, but that's just bad design.
- EGreg 13y ago
  It's gotten to such a weird point, though, that when I had data like this: [icon] item name item date [command] [command 2] [icon] item name item date [command] [command 2] many web designers told me to use unordered list items! Yes. Ok -- um two questions 1) Why is it called "unordered" when there is still an order? Bad naming ... 2) More importantly, how is the above not tabular data? Who becomes the arbiter of what is tabular, then, if the above is not tabular?
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    It could be tabular data, but it depends on context. If this was an order list, for example: Napkins 21-07-2011 14:52 Change Remove Pitchforks 21-07-2011 14:52 Change Remove It's not necessarily tabular data, you only have two columns. It could be represented differently without any loss: +-----------------------+ | Napkins (21/07) | | | | +--------+ +--------+ | | | Change | | Delete | | | +--------+ +--------+ | + ----------------------+ But if you had more data columns and headers it'd probably make sense to use a table. It's about providing meaningful context, relations and hierarchy, there are no hard rules. Unordered lists mean the order they have is not meaningful. It's physically impossible for something not to have an order...
  - krapp 13y ago
    it's called unordered because the "ordered" list <OL></OL> adds numbers beside the items.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    The essential reason non-tabular data shouldn't be represented as a table is because HTML tables coerce a particular presentation, whereas you can use CSS to arrange data in a tabular presentation if you want, or if you want to do it differently, just use a different set of CSS. The whole concept of tabular data is a concession to people who insist that they have to use tables.

by joshuak 13y ago

ricardobeat 13y ago

It's not the exact same issue, it's the exact opposite. Using meaningful markup (not div) where it shouldn't exist is more harmful than the contrary. Not using tables for layout doesn't mean you can't use tables at all - use tables for tabular data. Ask a blind person how they feel about you not agreeing that they should have access to the same web you do. They actually do 'watch' movies and TV by audio only. A lot of information is lost, but it's better than nothing. And with a web page using correct markup, a good screen reader interface, and some practice, they can navigate and consume information much faster than we can visually.

joshuak 13y ago
I think we are agreeing, and I don't mean to spin up the same debates. I'm just saying that as it is html presumes that the important content is the text and throws everything else over the fence. It implies that you are done with translating for all displays if you just follow proper html best practices, when in fact you should consider targeting your content for specific displays in many cases. I absolutely did not say that a blind person should not have access to the web I said the opposite, a designer should be mindful of their various audiences and design for them purposefully and not expect that a file format can do that for them. I wish there where layout oriented and data oriented table tags, but there isn't so table gets used for both if you want anyone looking at the code to to get what you're doing. I also wish you could designate where the 'content' actually is sometimes its the text sometimes its the imagery sometimes its the layout. Then at least you'd be clear on where manual translation is required.
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  The problem with that is that 99% of designers (or their boss) would not consider screen reader users as their audience. Designing purposefully for the visually impaired means using semantic markup, ARIA if needed, and being careful to offer annotations where content is mainly visual. Creating a separate experience would mean duplicating your whole site, and nobody would do it because of the cost - or even worse, create a limited, reduced version, like the mobile-specific sites with all their problems we all hate. It's a hard issue, but the goal of assistive technology is to include people with disability, not segregate. If you want to create a specialized version for them, by all means go ahead, but HTML and ARIA were designed with this goal in mind. I don't think there is a better tool for this. > I wish there where layout oriented and data oriented table tags [...] I also wish you could designate where the 'content' actually is That's where `display: table` comes in. New elements in HTML5 allow you to designate content, supporting text, images, navigation areas: main, article, nav, figure, aside, etc. This could already be done with ARIA "role" attributes in HTML4/XHTML.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
with a web page using correct markup, a good screen reader interface, and some practice, they can navigate and consume information much faster than we can visually. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK1tlLOavvM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK1tlLOavvM <-- Léonie Watson, "Design like you give a damn: Practical accessibility for Web Pros" = very good talk, crucial crash course, and includes a great demonstration of the bit of your post I quoted :D
- joshuak 13y ago
  Bingo! This Great talk! Slight left turn on the topic, but I think people can lose some elasticity in their thinking when they try to be politically correct. Accessibility implies impairment, but that can give you a mental model of "blind people are people too so we should be careful not to exclude them". But that's bottom up thinking you should be thinking what is possible, or top down thinking. The mental model is completely different if you take political correctness out of the equation. What if we are talking about a person driving a car using a web interface? Now the user can't see because of a situational limitation not a physical one. There is no need for the implication of sympathy. It's inspiring to me to design for any IO method I can think of. Aiding accessibility is useful to everyone, but I call that user experience and usability. This is why I get bent on some of the thinking behind HTML. Design, to me, isn't a second class citizen when communicating with your user/audience. New devices show the same information but did we just use the same html and css no we reformatted for the devices. What about when we are all using google glass and web enabled watches? Granted many web pages that where redesigned for 'mobile' would have done better to leave well enough alone, but that's just bad design.
EGreg 13y ago
It's gotten to such a weird point, though, that when I had data like this: [icon] item name item date [command] [command 2] [icon] item name item date [command] [command 2] many web designers told me to use unordered list items! Yes. Ok -- um two questions 1) Why is it called "unordered" when there is still an order? Bad naming ... 2) More importantly, how is the above not tabular data? Who becomes the arbiter of what is tabular, then, if the above is not tabular?
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  It could be tabular data, but it depends on context. If this was an order list, for example: Napkins 21-07-2011 14:52 Change Remove Pitchforks 21-07-2011 14:52 Change Remove It's not necessarily tabular data, you only have two columns. It could be represented differently without any loss: +-----------------------+ | Napkins (21/07) | | | | +--------+ +--------+ | | | Change | | Delete | | | +--------+ +--------+ | + ----------------------+ But if you had more data columns and headers it'd probably make sense to use a table. It's about providing meaningful context, relations and hierarchy, there are no hard rules. Unordered lists mean the order they have is not meaningful. It's physically impossible for something not to have an order...
- krapp 13y ago
  it's called unordered because the "ordered" list <OL></OL> adds numbers beside the items.
- saraid216 13y ago
  The essential reason non-tabular data shouldn't be represented as a table is because HTML tables coerce a particular presentation, whereas you can use CSS to arrange data in a tabular presentation if you want, or if you want to do it differently, just use a different set of CSS. The whole concept of tabular data is a concession to people who insist that they have to use tables.