John Foliot wrote:
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Very interesting and very unconvincing. For one, HR can be styled, so
not too much problem for today's ultra-cool graphic interface. As for
"Accessibility" I am really interested how HR helps it, and how it is
rendered in non visual browsers, and is this the best way of doing
it.
Last time I checked (and it *was* a while ago), styling the <hr />
is not
that satisfying an experience - as I recall it required a fair bit
of junk
code to render satisfactory "design" aesthetics - but I can be
corrected
here if I am wrong. But you have hit on a key point - non-visual
browsers.
Since the <hr /> *is* a page element, it is announced and rendered
as such -
it is a Horizontal Rule - or break, in just about every user-agent
known to
mankind; it is one of the most basic of HTML constructs. There is
a reason
*why* you as a page author/content creator wants that "line/
division/break"
on screen - I mean it's not just there on a whim is it? And so,
ensuring
that the "intent" carries through to alternative user-agents is a
goal of
Universal Accessibility. We have the HTML "tool" to do this - the
<hr /> -
yes, it's ugly, yes' it's limiting, but, yes, it has more *meaning*
than
<img src="linebreak.gif" alt="" />.
Ok, how about this improvement - give the section which must be
separated from the previous one some meaningful header, but hide it
with CSS, rendering only visual separator, like line, three stars,
whatever.
If inserting a meaningful Heading at that point in you content is
appropriate, then this is good (but why would you hide it from
some, and not
others? Would not the meaningful header also be of aid/assistance
to those
with cognitive load issues, those with lower comprehension or literacy
skills - perhaps ESL?). However, again, I will ask: if you are
using the
image to convey *any* kind of meaning what-so-ever, how are you
conveying
this meaning to alternative user-agents. It also means you must ask
yourself if there *is* a meaning to the break image (I submit that
there
probably is) or is it really just eye-candy. If it is being used
at the
bottom of a page/document then the argument for eye-candy would find
credence - if it is inserted into the "middle" of your content then
that
would be a harder argument to make.
**********
Meanwhile, Rob Kirton wrote:
From where i am sitting a <div> causes a nice logical break as
much as
<hr> (without needing to use one) and the top / or bottom border
can be
styled to appear like a horizontal rule if required.
Except Rob, Adaptive Technology does not explicitly announce
<divs>, as
while they add structure, they have no inherent semantic meaning,
which the
<hr /> does. You may be able to style your div to visually render
separation of content, but that visual rendering does not carry
through to
non-visual browsers:
div.top {border-bottom: 1px red dotted;}
...means absolutely nothing to a screen reader.
And so again, my question/challenge remains - if you are adding a
visual
information clue to your content how are you extending that
information to
non-visual user agents?
JF
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
Hooray! I've been watching this with my jaw hanging ever closer to
the ground...
To sum up:
<div> and <span> have NO semantic meaning and are transparent to
screen readers and (sans style) invisible in common browsers
while <h*>, <p> and <hr> all DO have semantic meanings:
<h*> indicates a new section which has a name/title and whose
importance is variable within the context of the document.
<p> is a paragraph
<hr> indicates the end of a section and/or beginning of a new section
with no name/title
In common browsers these are visually differentiated in their various
ways, and most (all?) human readers are so used to these visual
conventions that they absorb the semantic weight intuitively.
Meanwhile screen readers provide meaningful descriptions.
CSS can then play with the style of the presentation - but the choice
of style has nothing to do with semantics. Which I thought was
supposed to be the point.
<br> anyone?
Andrew
109b SE 4th Av
Gainesville
FL 32601
Cell: 352-870-6661
http://www.andrewmaben.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"In a well designed user interface, the user should not need
instructions."
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
