RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nicola Rae]

‘taping a 30 second conversation
between husband and wife’ is using a medium – the cassette and tape
recorder, and it is not catching the ‘visual cues’ of non verbal
communication. Audio tapes are unable to convey visual information although
they can convey non verbal communication as u say by inflection and tone etc,..
To use a tape is to miss a lot of information conveyed in that conversation –
not to simplify it.

 

Just, my thoughts..

Nikki

 



Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales,
Web Profit

 

Providers of internet marketing
services and accessible ebusiness solutions.

 

Nicola Rae

Maxima Consult

www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk

0044 (0)1273 476709











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kenny Graham
Sent: 13 July 2005 02:48
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HR -
Presentation or Structure?



 



Tape a 30 second
conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no "headers"
or 
"pages".  It's a different ball game.






Almost all forms of communication begin as structured content in the form of
thoughts.  You mentally structure what you want to say into sentences, you
want parts of those sentences to be emphasized, etc.  Then, depending on
the medium you want to present those thoughts in (speech, literature, etc), you
convert those abstract concepts into things like inflection and pauses for
speech, and periods and italics for literature.  In my understanding,
XHTML/XML is a way of recording that pure structured information before
limiting it to the constraints of a specific medium.  It is not to record
that information after it has been constrained to speech. 

Also, grouping headers with pages is flawed logic.  Headers have a
semantic meaning, while pages are, once again, a constraint of certain
presentation mediums.

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[heretic]

Hi,

> Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on
> the discussion. Are all other web standards folks on here really in
> agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a
> strong bias towards the visual? I would have thought not, but there you
> go...naive little old me...

Well, since you prompt... :)

I see XHTML as a fairly generic method of marking up content according
to meaningful definitions of communication items. We define which bits
of data are headings, paragraphs, etc... but ideally when creating the
XHTML we should have absolutely no thoughts about how it will look
(eg. screen), sound (eg. reader) or feel (eg. braille printer).

When I say generic I mean it's purposefully independent of any
specific deliver/rendering mechanism. Realistically there is a limited
set of options; we don't have a way to have our content spoken by
robots including gestures, intonation and facial expressions. But
within available options XHTML has no bias.

Any bias towards the visual is just a reflection on the fact that
today's computers are mostly used to silently display visual
renderings of information. To put it another way, it's the way we use
the web which puts an emphasis on the visual aspects... it is not the
underlying markup.

The line was definitely blurred with earlier versions of HTML, which
included non-structural elements like FONT, B, I, U, etc. I think -
getting back to the original post - the HR element suffers due to bad
naming.

"Horizontal Rule" is a visual description of how a separator might
commonly be rendered. Its purpose is to separate two areas of content.
It is not actually a style item, since it provides a clear boundary
between pieces of content which need to be retained at all times. 
"Separator" is a much better description/definition, but we're not up
to XHTML 2 yet so HR it is.

So... yes, I think HR has a place as content despite the name. I
personally use them between blog posts, since blog posts are a series
of unrelated sections with the same heading level. I tend to hide them
using CSS, replacing them with something I consider more aesthetically
pleasing (eg. a border around the entire post).

But that's also since I expect people with screen readers to disable
CSS. If you're blind you don't need CSS and it's a waste of time and
bandwidth; if you're using a screen zoom you'll stick with the page
design. Both ways there is a clear separator.

h

-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not 
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Damian Sweeney]

Grant replies:
Well, no. MathML by its nature is not purely for the visual register.
And no - we should not have to realign a complex formula if the
materials merit it because what we are doing then is making the content
less accessible/comprehensible for many people to allow it to be equally
accessible to all. If breaking the formula up into little chunks makes
comprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not
do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complex
formula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine the
learning. In most learning materials complexity builds throughout the
learning.


Breaking the formula into smaller chunks made it easier for all 
learners to comprehend (not stated explicitly in the paper, but 
mentioned at the conference).



We should be very wary of dumbing down content in the name of
accessibility. Accessibility is a continuum not an absolute and we often
have to make judgement calls that balance the interests of one group of
people against another. Equally accessible doesn't exist. As accessible
as possible is a fine aim.


I'm not saying we should change the formula or dumb it down. The 
information inherent in the equation remains the same, but as with 
many aspects of accessibility, by transforming it we can make it 
easier for everyone.


For me accessibility starts before we create the content, not after. 
I'm not saying it's easy, but my experience has been that accessible 
design from the ground up results in better content, not worse.


Cheers,

Damian

--
Damian Sweeney
Learning Skills Adviser (online)
Language and Learning Skills Unit
Instructional Designer, AIRport Project
Equity, Language and Learning Programs
University of Melbourne
723 Swanston St
Parkville 3010
www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/
www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/
airport.unimelb.edu.au/
ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039

This email and any attachments may contain personal information or 
information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of 
copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of 
it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or 
any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any 
attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this 
email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return 
email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370.

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Kenny Graham]

If breaking the formula up into little chunks makescomprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not
do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complexformula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine thelearning.Breaking content up into "little chunks" doesn't in any way change the content itself, and is therefore not dumbing it down.  If it somehow makes comprehension harder for any users, it is a serious flaw in the user agent.

RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Focas, Grant]

Damian wrote:
(Essentially, a big equation can be broken down into component parts. 
This can make it easier for blind users to read the equation and for 
sighted users to understand the equation. The equation is the same, 
it is just constructed in a more accessible form.)

>It is accessible (except that for visual browsers it will only work 
>on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by screen readers.

It is not accessible until you realign the original material so that 
it is not constructed purely for the visual register.

Grant replies:
Well, no. MathML by its nature is not purely for the visual register.
And no - we should not have to realign a complex formula if the
materials merit it because what we are doing then is making the content
less accessible/comprehensible for many people to allow it to be equally
accessible to all. If breaking the formula up into little chunks makes
comprehension harder for the vast majority of people then we should not
do it and I do not agree with your assertion that breaking a complex
formula will make it more understandable - it may in fact undermine the
learning. In most learning materials complexity builds throughout the
learning. 

We should be very wary of dumbing down content in the name of
accessibility. Accessibility is a continuum not an absolute and we often
have to make judgement calls that balance the interests of one group of
people against another. Equally accessible doesn't exist. As accessible
as possible is a fine aim.

Grant Focas
**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Kenny Graham]

Tape a 30 secondconversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no "headers" or
"pages".  It's a different ball game.Almost all forms of communication begin as structured content in the form of thoughts.  You mentally structure what you want to say into sentences, you want parts of those sentences to be emphasized, etc.  Then, depending on the medium you want to present those thoughts in (speech, literature, etc), you convert those abstract concepts into things like inflection and pauses for speech, and periods and italics for literature.  In my understanding, XHTML/XML is a way of recording that pure structured information before limiting it to the constraints of a specific medium.  It is not to record that information after it has been constrained to speech.
Also, grouping headers with pages is flawed logic.  Headers have a semantic meaning, while pages are, once again, a constraint of certain presentation mediums.

RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Damian Sweeney]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for HTML to be not accessible,
but I feel what Mike may be trying to point out is that visual 
design can be an important part of the meaning.


Then you are teaching/presenting material in the visual register and 
therefore presenting inherently inaccessible material. What you then 
need to do is transform the material.




MathML is a classic example of this.


Correct! http://www.ozewai.org/2004/presentations/smith.doc

(Essentially, a big equation can be broken down into component parts. 
This can make it easier for blind users to read the equation and for 
sighted users to understand the equation. The equation is the same, 
it is just constructed in a more accessible form.)


It is accessible (except that for visual browsers it will only work 
on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by screen readers.


It is not accessible until you realign the original material so that 
it is not constructed purely for the visual register.


In so many ways we must ensure that our content is as accessible as 
possible but it is wishful thinking to assume it is equally 
accessible or that one medium (vision) is not favoured over another. 
Yes the technology (HTML) does not favour it but human practice of 
communication does.


It is not the human practice of communication, but the assumptions we 
make when authoring the material in the first place - even before it 
gets to the web.


Cheers,

Damian

--
Damian Sweeney
Learning Skills Adviser (online)
Language and Learning Skills Unit
Instructional Designer, AIRport Project
Equity, Language and Learning Programs
University of Melbourne
723 Swanston St
Parkville 3010
www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/
www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/
airport.unimelb.edu.au/
ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039

This email and any attachments may contain personal information or 
information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of 
copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of 
it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or 
any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any 
attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this 
email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return 
email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370.

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in 
on the discussion.


...been busy cracking some more bugs related to the visual - as usual.

Are all other web standards folks on here really in agreement that 
(X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a strong bias

 towards the visual?


No, (x)html is basically a media-neutral language, but most of the users
are pretty biased towards a visual experience on the web - no matter the
language. That affects the way we _use_ the languages available to us,
just as in all other walks of life.

I think the problem is that CSS is lagging behind, and software
(browsers and such) are even further behind. Thus we can go on
discussing what should be the proper use of (x)html as a media-neutral
language, but there are in many cases few or no options but to use (or
misuse) (x)html for visual presentation first, and worry about the
neutrality and accessibility later.

The fact that I often prefer to turn off CSS, scripting and images, and
evaluate what I find on the web as pure (x)html-delivered content in the
form of text, makes proper use of (x)html really interesting. As I've
also started to use 'speaking' software to ensure (somewhat) that
content-delivery makes sense, makes proper and well-structured use of
(x)html even more important. Still, the use of (x)html has to be tilted
slightly towards the visual, simply because the visual is so important
to so many users, and the whole package of (x)html and supporting
languages and UA-support is so weak.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Focas, Grant wrote:

For example, I work primarily on educational sites and we know that whitespace and the amount of words in a line are part of what determines how sighted people absorb the information and learn. The same information is available to a screen reader but the ability to absorb the information into learning is lessened - not just different but lessened. 


Screenreader users can determine their own pace of reading, and can 
(provided documents are marked up properly) work their way from 
paragraph to paragraph etc at their own leasure, pause between 
sentences, go back, have a section re-read, get an overview of the 
structure, etc. Sure, stick someone in front of a screenreader set to 
read the entire page in one big go, and understanding will be lessened. 
But as screenreader use is an interactive process, I have serious doubts 
about your statement, sorry.



MathML is a classic example of this.


MathML is a whole separate kettle of fish, and I don't dispute that for 
long equations it will be more difficult to follow aural representations 
as opposed to visual ones. However, this is not just a problem online, 
as it's no different from, say, blind users learning maths from books in 
braille, audio tapes, etc.


--
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
**

RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Focas, Grant]

I don't think anyone here is arguing for HTML to be not accessible,
but I feel what Mike may be trying to point out is that visual design can be an 
important part of the meaning.
 
For example, I work primarily on educational sites and we know that whitespace 
and the amount of words in a line are part of what determines how sighted 
people absorb the information and learn. The same information is available to a 
screen reader but the ability to absorb the information into learning is 
lessened - not just different but lessened. 

MathML is a classic example of this. It is accessible (except that for visual 
browsers it will only work on modern browsers) in that it can be interpreted by 
screen readers. However you have to be able to hold so many more concepts 
inside your head at one time when reading an equation through a screen reader 
than a visual browser. Math equations are intrinsically more suited to a visual 
medium.

In so many ways we must ensure that our content is as accessible as possible 
but it is wishful thinking to assume it is equally accessible or that one 
medium (vision) is not favoured over another. Yes the technology (HTML) does 
not favour it but human practice of communication does.

Grant Focas

-Original Message-
Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?


Mike Whitehurst wrote:
> what do you mean by primarily? please elaborate.

To simplify, what Nathan seems to be arguing is that HTML is mainly 
meant to mark up documents in the tradition of print, and as such has a 
bias towards visual rendition in a browser to sighted users. Our 
argument is that HTML is more generalised than that, and was not 
intended to mark up content that would only be delivered visually in a 
browser; it was meant to mark up information so that it can be presented 
to the user in a variety of ways. Yes, most users are sighted and can 
therefore use a web browser which renders HTML as a visual document, but 
the same markup is also good for being read out by a screenreader, for 
instance. The visual representation is not inherent in HTML, it's only 
that it's the most common way to present HTML to the user.

-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
**
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
privileged information or confidential information or both. If you
are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
**
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Incidentally, I'm surprised that more people here haven't jumped in on 
the discussion. Are all other web standards folks on here really in 
agreement that (X)HTML is a visual language by design, or at least has a 
strong bias towards the visual? I would have thought not, but there you 
go...naive little old me...


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Mike Whitehurst wrote:

what do you mean by primarily? please elaborate.


To simplify, what Nathan seems to be arguing is that HTML is mainly 
meant to mark up documents in the tradition of print, and as such has a 
bias towards visual rendition in a browser to sighted users. Our 
argument is that HTML is more generalised than that, and was not 
intended to mark up content that would only be delivered visually in a 
browser; it was meant to mark up information so that it can be presented 
to the user in a variety of ways. Yes, most users are sighted and can 
therefore use a web browser which renders HTML as a visual document, but 
the same markup is also good for being read out by a screenreader, for 
instance. The visual representation is not inherent in HTML, it's only 
that it's the most common way to present HTML to the user.


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Mike Whitehurst]

what do you mean by primarily? please 
elaborate.
 

 Mike 
Whitehurst www.mike-whitehurst.co.uk

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Patrick 
  H. Lauke 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:19 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or 
  Structure?
  Mike Whitehurst wrote:> Why should sighted people not be 
  allowed to appreciate art online?None of us are arguing that. What I 
  do object to, though, is the false statement that the web is *primarily* a 
  visual medium. That is utter rubbish.-- 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.ukhttp://redux.deviantart.com__Web 
  Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://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**

RE: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nicola Rae]

Agreed. Information can be conveyed
through graphical representation too. It’s still all 1’s and 0’s
at the end of the day.

 

Nikki

 



Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales,
Web Profit

 

Providers of internet marketing
services and accessible ebusiness solutions.

 

Nicola Rae

Maxima Consult

www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk

0044 (0)1273 476709











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Whitehurst
Sent: 12 July 2005 20:07
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] HR -
Presentation or Structure?



 



Why should sighted people not be allowed
to appreciate art online?





 







 Mike Whitehurst
 www.mike-whitehurst.co.uk









- Original Message - 





From: Laura Carlson 





To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org






Sent: Tuesday, July 12,
2005 6:42 PM





Subject: Re: [WSG] HR -
Presentation or Structure?





 



> The web was built as
a means to disseminate information.

Patrick is correct.

The web is not a visual medium. Some marketers, graphic artists and 
designers may be shocked to learn that.

The web is an information medium. One way in which that information is 
conveyed is visually, to user agents ("web browsers").

But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a specific structure 
that allows for semantic meaning and content to be conveyed independent 
of a particular means of representation. In other words, HTML can be 
interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance - but it doesn't 
have to be.

When designers began designing only visual web pages during the 
"browser wars" as Patrick mentioned, they began to miss the boat 
skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it allows for far more 
than simply laying out pretty images and colors next to each other.

Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this respect, and only 
built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with 
having a great visual representation. But be careful not to confuse the 
display of a web page with the actual page itself.

This impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be 
simply a visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of 
other non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around 
sound principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it 
should be as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with 
perfect vision.

Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only people with 
special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other disabilities, 
especially motor disabilities but including many others from lack of 
hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted access 
to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes 
everyone-that's the power of the web.

Laura
___
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota
Duluth
Duluth, MN,
 U.S.A.
55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Mike Whitehurst wrote:

Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online?


None of us are arguing that. What I do object to, though, is the false 
statement that the web is *primarily* a visual medium. That is utter 
rubbish.


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nathan Rutman wrote:

I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums.  
You don't think it caters to one medium over another?


Just because the larger percentage of users are able to access it with a 
GUI, does not make the medium itself and the languages it's based biased 
towards sighted, mouse-using people. It's a bit like saying IBM PCs are 
biased towards the Windows operating system. Show me the part of the 
HTML or XHTML spec that says the languages are primarily meant as a 
visual markup language...


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Laura Carlson]

Why should sighted people not be allowed to appreciate art online?


Sighted people should be allowed to appreciate art online...and maybe 
not in the same way, but people with a disability should be able to 
appreciate them too.


Some people think that images are bad for accessibility. The truth is 
that they can be of great benefit to the accessibility of a web page by 
providing illustrations, icons, animations, or other visual cues that 
aid comprehension for sighted individuals. Too often we forget that 
when we design for people with disabilities, we are not designing only 
for the blind. We must consider all disabilities types. Images can be 
especially useful to individuals with certain reading disabilities, 
learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, or cognitive 
disabilities. The thing to remember with images is to make them 
accessible.


The single most important thing you can do to make a web page 
accessible is to include alternative text for images with alt 
attributes.


An alt attribute is used to specify alternative text. It is used to 
replace an image. That means that it serves the same function as the 
image.


Users of screenreaders, language translation applications, text 
browsers, or some hand-held devices cannot directly access pictures and 
other graphics. Similarly, some users choose to turn picture loading 
off- especially those with slower dial-in connections. These users rely 
on alt attributes. When you make the decision to add alternative text, 
you include the many people who use talking browsers, screen readers, 
text browsers or browsers on small devices.


Besides the alt attribute you have a few more tools at your disposal 
for images...title and longdesc attributes.  A couple of things to keep 
in mind about these attributes are:


First, in degree of descriptiveness title is in between alt and 
longdesc. It adds useful information and can add flavor.


Second, the longdesc attribute points to the URL of a full description 
of an image. If the information contained in an image is important to 
the meaning of the page (i.e. some important content would be lost if 
the image was removed like in online art), a longer description than 
the "alt" attribute can reasonably display should be used. It can 
provide for rich, expressive documentation of a visual image. It should 
be used when alt and title are insufficient to embody the visual 
qualities of an image. As Joe Clark states in his book [1], "A longdesc 
is a long description of an image...The aim is to use any length of 
description necessary to impart the details of the graphic. It would 
not be remiss to hope that a long description conjures an image - the 
image - in the mind's eye, an analogy that holds true even for the 
totally blind."


Laura

[1] Clark, Joe. Building Accessible Websites, New Riders Publishing, 
2002.

___
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Laura Carlson]

I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums.
You don't think it caters to one medium over another?


Perhaps some web designers concentrate on a particular CSS media type 
[1] more than another. And perhaps on some web sites, sighted, 
dexterous, able-bodied users outnumber users with a disability.


But HTML does not cater to a single media type. That's the beauty. HTML 
and (X)HTML are markup languages, designed for modeling the logical 
structure of information, not its appearance. Cascading Style Sheets 
(CSS) control the visual appearance as well as other display media when 
using structural markup.


The strengths of the web, which makes it unique as a medium of 
communication, is that it isn't limited to a visual-only output. A 
correctly designed web site would communicate effectively aurally as 
well as visually. Accessibility is not only about 'locking someone out' 
- everyone, after all, is a potential user of your site. But it is also 
about backward and forward compatibility, about writing one version of 
a web site (rather than several) that everyone, no matter how old or 
new their Internet device / OS / computer hardware, will be able to 
access in some way or other. Accessible web design is socially 
responsible and equitable web design. It shows that you are committed 
to providing equal access to web-based information to all people.


It does not mean boring, as many will tell you. But there is an 
important point which shouldn't be overlooked. Most visitors to a web 
site are not coming there to look at it. They are coming there to 
accomplish a specific task. Almost invariably a simple interface will 
have high usability and high accessibility at the same time.


What it comes down to is the ability to access information. A complete 
focus on the user (all users) stems from an understanding of why people 
are coming to your web site: Information. Accessibility is the effort 
toward providing equal access to the information to all-regardless of 
the methods they use to access it.


Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/media.html
___
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Dennis Lapcewich]

Let us not forget that the web is a totally different medium that a printed
document.While actual web presentation and structure has its origins in
the printed world, we talking a different puppy with a different set of
human needs and interactions with the same content.  The brain perceives
and interprets web page content differently than a printed document.   For
example, content from a printed document is perceived via reflected light.
Web content itself is the light.  (Oh, wait. Oh, never mind!)  User can
scan, read and go back and forth with a printed document.  They can do the
same thing with web content, to a point.  The resulting physical and
psychological barriers bother many people.  Is it any wonder that printed
content ported over to the web should be reduced by fifty percent, and
executive summaries with dot point items rule the roost?

We can debate and argue the finer points of coding, structure and
presentation all we want with respect to the web.  Let's just not forget
many of us prefer a printed copy manual over any sort of on-line web
content any day of the week, for a variety of legitimate and inane reasons.
Our web customers make the same discerning decisions when it comes to the
web as well.  Most are just not aware of the decisions they make with their
own web experiences.




 Dennis Lapcewich   
 USDA Forest Service Webmaster  
 Pacific Northwest Region - Vancouver, WA   
 360-891-5024 - Voice | 360-891-5045 - Fax  
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]   

 "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing 
 it." -- Anonymous  




**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Mike Whitehurst]

Why should sighted people not be 
allowed to appreciate art online?
 

 Mike 
Whitehurst www.mike-whitehurst.co.uk

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Laura Carlson 
  
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:42 
PM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or 
  Structure?
  > The web was built as a means to disseminate 
  information.Patrick is correct.The web is not a visual medium. 
  Some marketers, graphic artists and designers may be shocked to learn 
  that.The web is an information medium. One way in which that 
  information is conveyed is visually, to user agents ("web 
  browsers").But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a 
  specific structure that allows for semantic meaning and content to be 
  conveyed independent of a particular means of representation. In other 
  words, HTML can be interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance - 
  but it doesn't have to be.When designers began designing only 
  visual web pages during the "browser wars" as Patrick mentioned, they 
  began to miss the boat skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it 
  allows for far more than simply laying out pretty images and colors next 
  to each other.Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this 
  respect, and only built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is 
  wrong with having a great visual representation. But be careful not to 
  confuse the display of a web page with the actual page itself.This 
  impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be simply a 
  visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of other 
  non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around sound 
  principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it should be 
  as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with perfect 
  vision.Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only 
  people with special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other 
  disabilities, especially motor disabilities but including many others from 
  lack of hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted 
  access to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes 
  everyone-that's the power of the 
  web.Laura___Laura L. 
  CarlsonInformation Technology Systems and ServicesUniversity of 
  Minnesota DuluthDuluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/**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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

Laura,

I understand that HTML certainly can be interpreted on other mediums.  
You don't think it caters to one medium over another?


-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Laura Carlson]

The web was built as a means to disseminate information.


Patrick is correct.

The web is not a visual medium. Some marketers, graphic artists and 
designers may be shocked to learn that.


The web is an information medium. One way in which that information is 
conveyed is visually, to user agents ("web browsers").


But that's not the only way. HTML is designed with a specific structure 
that allows for semantic meaning and content to be conveyed independent 
of a particular means of representation. In other words, HTML can be 
interpreted in terms of visual display and appearance - but it doesn't 
have to be.


When designers began designing only visual web pages during the 
"browser wars" as Patrick mentioned, they began to miss the boat 
skipping a lot of the true power of HTML, as it allows for far more 
than simply laying out pretty images and colors next to each other.


Many web authors have had skewed mind sets in this respect, and only 
built visual web pages. Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with 
having a great visual representation. But be careful not to confuse the 
display of a web page with the actual page itself.


This impacts visually impaired people. If your page is designed to be 
simply a visual object, you'll lose this audience (and any number of 
other non-visual browser agents), but if your page is structured around 
sound principles of semantic markup and intelligent presentation, it 
should be as usable for someone completely blind as for someone with 
perfect vision.


Of course, users with visual impairments are not the only people with 
special needs that need to be kept in mind. Other disabilities, 
especially motor disabilities but including many others from lack of 
hearing to cognitive disabilities, and likewise have restricted access 
to websites. The goal should be to design in a way that includes 
everyone-that's the power of the web.


Laura
___
Laura L. Carlson
Information Technology Systems and Services
University of Minnesota Duluth
Duluth, MN, U.S.A. 55812-3009
http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/
**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

>> I may not be hip with the kind of basic design/marketing resources 
you frequent. I'd be particularly mindful of "marketing" resources, as 
they're clearly not an impartial or authoritive source of information on 
what the web was meant to be and what HTML should be used for...


You weren't following my reasoning.  I wasn't saying that the marketing 
sites are a source for what HTML should be used for.  I was claiming 
that I think they describe the interaction between presentation and 
content well - that there is a point where those layers cannot be 
separated and the presentation becomes part of the content.  This was in 
context to how X/HTML is different from the written form of a speech, in 
that hearing the presenter deliver the speech (i.e. the presentation) 
feeds into the content.


I'm just not sure that the delivery of information is as cut and dry as 
we're trying to make it...and if it's not that cut and dry, one has to 
ask whether the model implemented in X/HTML is truly universal.

-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Mike Whitehurst]

good content has structure, one 
implies the other. the word used is irrelevant.
I dont know how screen readers handle 
HR's no, and i guess not all screen readers handle them the same 
way.
 
- if your HR denotes a change of 
section, maybe use a h2 to begin that section. If you really want a line, you 
could use a border-top on your h2.
- if your HR is coz because you want 
a line in your page, maybe use a 1x1px stretched image - with a blank alt 
naturally.
 
either solution satisfies me, just 
depends on the situation.
 
with regards to the spammed topic, if 
users could use meaningful titles in their topics, that's enough to allow me to 
set up mailbox rules to filter out what i dont want. thanks.

 Mike 
Whitehurst www.mike-whitehurst.co.uk

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Nathan 
  Rutman 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:06 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or 
  Structure?
  I think the presentation/structure dichotomy is a bit 
  misleading...let's talk about presentation/content (the "structure" of a 
  page makes me think of its presentation rather than the content that the 
  presentation is presenting).And I'll just throw this out there: 
  Does anyone know how screen readers handle HR's?The use I see for 
  HR is not presentational, par se, but rather to separate large amounts of 
  content and make it more readable.  It is the web's equivalent to a 
  novel's line of asterisks, used to communicate a break in plot, location, 
  or time, and is therefore part of the content just like paragraphs 
  are.  A border fails to complete this purpose for two 
  reasons:(1) A border must be associated with a container 
  element.  Thus, in order to logically break apart large parts of 
  text, the text cannot be contained in the "same flow" within one 
  container.  One might say that you could easily add a border and 
  appropriate margin to even something as simple as a paragraph tag, but 
  that ignores the use specified above.  If I have a chapter or a 
  report, the horizontal rule is a characteristic of that larger unit, not 
  the last paragraph that occurs before the break.(2) A border will 
  vanish should the style/application change.  The reason I asked about 
  screen readers is that an HR used correctly is part of the content.  
  It dictates how that content should be subdivided and interpreted.  
  Think of what horizontal rules accomplish in books, journals, magazines, 
  and other text-oriented atmospheres.  Is it presentation?  
  Sure.  Just like paragraph breaks (or even commas and periods) are 
  presentation - they provide a basic building block for readable content, 
  and are so basic that they become a part of the content.  Deliver 
  that content to a website, a publication, or an oral presentation, and in 
  each circumstance the break should have an effect to that delivery, 
  whether it's a visual line or a pause in delivery to communicate a 
  division to listeners.Now, having said this I realize that W3C does 
  not agree in the strictest sense:"The HR element causes a 
  horizontal rule to be *rendered by visual* user agents."(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.3)However, 
  I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in other mediums, 
  we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web, especially if we 
  want a web that can store content from those other mediums.What are 
  your thoughts?  Did I convince you?  ;-)-Nate*Nathan 
  Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)Corporate 
  Communications Designer*Solvepoint Corporation*882 South Matlack 
  Street, Suite 110West Chester, PA 19382800.388.1850 
  x1208484.356.0990 (fax)www.solvepoint.com <http://www.solvepoint.com>Gunlaug 
  Sørtun wrote:> Kenny Graham wrote:>>> Am I alone 
  in feeling that  should be depreciated in favor of 
  CSS>>  borders? Especially with  in the XHTML 
  2.0 drafts, what >> semantic or even structural value does 
   have? Every argument for >> its retention that I've heard 
  so far has been presentation related.>>> Well, I only use 
   for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from> graphical 
  browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing> content at 
  times. Adds a little structure...>> Borders and other types of 
  separators are fine, so those are preferred> for presentational use in 
  graphical browsers.>> If the future brings better solutions, 
  then I'll probably use those> instead - once the browsers have caught 
  up.>> regards> 
  Georg**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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nathan Rutman wrote:

Yeah, that's my point.  The web was built primarily to be seen and 
clicked on.


The web was built as a means to disseminate information.

Can X/HTML be used for other things?  Sure.  Is it best 
suited towards other things?  I'm not so sure.  It seems to be rooted in 
vision-presentation.


It's rooted in the dissemination of information. During the browser 
wars, it got sullied with a myriad of additional tags etc to force 
presentation into it, and we're still seeing the after-effects of it now.


Actually, any web design/marketing 101 resource will tell 
you that.  X/HTML seems better tailored to presenting the content 
visually than anything else. 


I may not be hip with the kind of basic design/marketing resources you 
frequent. I'd be particularly mindful of "marketing" resources, as 
they're clearly not an impartial or authoritive source of information on 
what the web was meant to be and what HTML should be used for...


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

We're starting to get pretty far out there.  We'll have to see if any of 
these hopes come to fruition (which is my response to PODcasting or 
Talkr - we'll see if it's a lasting impact or a passing fad).


>> Why would people with perfect vision, who have since early childhood 
relied on their capacity to see, be more likely to switch to an audio 
only browser?


Yeah, that's my point.  The web was built primarily to be seen and 
clicked on.  Can X/HTML be used for other things?  Sure.  Is it best 
suited towards other things?  I'm not so sure.  It seems to be rooted in 
vision-presentation.


>> How is a website different from the example above of notes to a speaker?

Because when you go to a speech or a public reading, you go to hear the 
delivery as well as the information delivered.  The most popular 
speeches that I'm aware of (I'm an American, so Dr. King's "I have a 
dream..." and Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" come to mind) are popular 
not only for their content, but also for their delivery.  We see a 
similar thing on the web.  There comes a point where the line between 
content and presentation becomes blurred - they aren't always 
clear-cut.  Actually, any web design/marketing 101 resource will tell 
you that.  X/HTML seems better tailored to presenting the content 
visually than anything else.  Again, we'll see what the future gives us.


Thanks for the stimulating conversation.  I have enjoyed it.
-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Martin Heiden]

Nathan,

Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 15:37:41 haben Sie geschrieben:

> In speech, I would say we do a similar thing...not the same.  There are
> rules for italics (refering to a particular thing, like a book or a 
> word) that don't refer to any verbal usage.  You wouldn't want screen
> readers to put emphasis there (i.e. "Because it is a verb, /run/ has a
> past, present, and future tense.").  Yet we choose two elements, EM and
> STRONG that come from written forms instead of INF1 through INF5 for
> inflection values.  Sure we can mimic inflection for EM and STRONG, but
> that doesn't change their origin or primary intention.  I mean, think
> about it, we have whole tags devoted to tables and images - purely 
> visual content.  What purely auditory elements do we have (auditory 
> descriptors of visual data don't count)?

I think of  and  as abstract concepts. They don't come
from written forms but from the intention to distinguish between a
"normal" part of content and a "emphasized".

There are some purely auditory elements in real life: Like clapping
hands... And even in speech you use different "melodies" to express
your feelings. Think of the real worlds equivalents to ;-) :-) or :-P

>>> You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION.

> I'm not aware of all these differences...what's the difference between
> data and content?  Aren't they the same?  The closest thing I could find
> is the difference between data and information 

CONTENT is text, images... this content is represanted by 01010011 on
the harddrive, which is DATA.

Martin.

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nathan Rutman wrote:

I agree in that paragraphs contain single thoughts/topics, but do you 
think of someone speaking "in paragraphs?"  I generally constrain that 
to written word, but perhaps that is not accurate.


I think this is more of an issue of nomenclature. The naming of elements 
in HTML was based too closely on the print world, but in 
structural/semantic markup, we're interested in the "concept" of a 
paragraph.


If this were not 
the case, we wouldn't have to go to extra lengths to make pages 
"accessible" for non-visual users.


The only time where you have to go the extra mile to make pages 
accessible is when you're adding elements that are exclusively visual: 
an image, a flash presentation, a quicktime movie, a pure audio file. 
There is *no* additional work involved in making a well structured, 
semantic document usable by blind or deaf users.


The fact that we have to add 
parameters and extra data for non-visual users should show us that the 
underlying framework is tailored to visual users.


Again, additional parameters are not needed unless the source data 
itself is purely audio/visual in nature. I don't need to add any extra 
parameters to my headings, paragraphs, etc to make a screenreader work 
with them, for instance.


Tape a 30 second 
conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no "headers" or 
"pages".  It's a different ball game.


Apples and oranges. Conversations are unstructured. They differ in their 
very nature from structured documents. However, you still have quite 
separate thoughts, logical groups within the conversation, which can be 
quite clearly delimited and structured.


That's easy: they need a tool to take what a browser would give them and 
instead provide the information to them in a format more meaningful to 
them.


That may have been true for screen scrapers (which used the visual 
output of the screen and read that out), but modern screenreaders access 
the DOM and source code directly


Unless you're willing to argue that a web browser is simply one 
of many tools (instead of the primary and intended tool) for viewing 
X/HTML information, this seems semi-obvious.


Actually yes, I am arguing that exactly.

If the structure was truly 
agnostic and unbiased towards visual presentation, you'd have people 
with perfect vision who would rather browse the web with a screen 
reader.


A red herring. Why would people with perfect vision, who have since 
early childhood relied on their capacity to see, be more likely to 
switch to an audio only browser?
Additionally: how does podcasting strike you? Or new services like Talkr 
http://www.talkr.com/ ?
And is it not mainly because screenreaders are traditionally very 
expensive pieces of kit (thousands of dollars)?
With a wider availability of inexpensive solutions for modal access to 
content, I believe we WILL see more users choosing (depending on their 
situation) to access content in different ways. And that's what XHTML is 
about: marking up content, giving it structure. It's not a visual markup 
language. It's designers back in the 90s who made that assumption...


The idea that screen readers are for people who have hindered 
vision seems to point to a bias towards the visual presentation of 
X/HTML if available.


Visual rendering of content is only the most prevalent because 
accessibility was not an initial concern, and modal access to content 
was still a pipe dream. And I'm not disputing that the majority of users 
do have vision and use visual means to access content. That's not to say 
that the underlying technology has a bias towards them.


Accessibility, in my understanding (and I freely admit this could be a 
flawed understanding) is all about providing access to people without 
the ability to use a full-blown GUI, point-and-click web interface 
(whether due to disabilities or equipment [PDAs]). 


No, it's about providing a device and capability agnostic way of 
accessing content. However, due to the history of the web, and the fact 
that even today designer's can't get over the "the web is visual" flawed 
paradigm, the main efforts in accessibility are those explaining how one 
must add additional effort in not creating barriers for users which 
might not have 20/20 vision or perfect hearing.


Ahh, but that's different.  In those cases written language is serving 
the spoken, acting as notes. 

[...]
Sure, I want all people to be able to benefit from 
the sites I build, but the idea that X/HTML lends itself to auditory 
users as much as it lends itself to visual users I don't find very 
convincing.


How is a website different from the example above of notes to a speaker?

--
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
__

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

Ok, real quick.  :-)

>>  and  aren't derivations of bold and italics but the 
otherway around...


Yes, my fault.  I should have been more careful.

>> In speech you do the same with intonation. If diferent people say 
the same thing in diferent languages or even in the same, it sounds 
diferent, but in means of structure you will still notice the emphasis, 
sometimes even without knowing the language.


In speech, I would say we do a similar thing...not the same.  There are 
rules for italics (refering to a particular thing, like a book or a 
word) that don't refer to any verbal usage.  You wouldn't want screen 
readers to put emphasis there (i.e. "Because it is a verb, /run/ has a 
past, present, and future tense.").  Yet we choose two elements, EM and 
STRONG that come from written forms instead of INF1 through INF5 for 
inflection values.  Sure we can mimic inflection for EM and STRONG, but 
that doesn't change their origin or primary intention.  I mean, think 
about it, we have whole tags devoted to tables and images - purely 
visual content.  What purely auditory elements do we have (auditory 
descriptors of visual data don't count)?


>> You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION.

I'm not aware of all these differences...what's the difference between 
data and content?  Aren't they the same?  The closest thing I could find 
is the difference between data and information 
(http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/d/data-info.html), 
and if that's what you meant, I'd be interested to hear how you'd 
differenciate between the two in an X/HTML document.  I can't think of a 
difference, but that certainly doesn't mean that there isn't one.


Thanks for your thoughts!
-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.com 



Martin Heiden wrote:


Nathan,

Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 14:04:09 haben Sie geschrieben:

 


Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold
and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a
speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less
meaning to these "structural" elements (sometimes no meaning at
all).
   



I do not follow your argumentation.  and  aren't
derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around. bold and
italics are visual expressions of emphasis. In speech you do the same
with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent
languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of
structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without
knowing the language.

If you separate structure and visual expression, you've got much more
chances to express exactly what you want. Yo can choose to express
 as orange text and  as red instead of just being bound to
italics and bold. And a screenreader can still distinguish between
normal and strong emphasis. Maybe someday you'll be able to instruct
even the screenreader how you want to express this structure in aural
way.

 


I would lump X/HTML in with that group of "inherently visual
documents."  And someone will say, "But it's data recorded 
electronically, not printed on a page," to which I would reply, "Data is

data, whether stored in ink or in memory."  A hard drive can contain
00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an 
Elvis mp3?  The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is 
interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual.  Screen

readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret
books orally.  It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was
visual.
   



You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. These are
different layers of the product that you see on your monitor or hear
from your speakers. If you mix the compontents you loose flexibilty.
If you store a book as DATA on a harddrive expressed as STRUCTUREd
CONTENT - maybe technical as xml (or xhtml) - you can transform the
same STRUCTURE with it's CONTENT to a visual representation (like a
webpage) or using a screenreader to aural media (voice/mp3). You only
have to change the VISUALIZATION.

And I think that's huge a benefit.

 and  are much more meaningful than  or  because
they don't loose their meaning when transformed to different media.

Martin.

**
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 hel

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

Patrick,

Thanks for your ideas.  I'll be considering them more fully, but I did 
want to respond with some initial thoughts/feelings:


>> Actually, I always saw paragraphs as one single thought or topic. 
Once you go on to another thought, you're starting a new paragraph. Yes, 
the name derives from the printed world ("graph" is the clue here), but 
the more abstract concept is not bound to print or the visual world.


I agree in that paragraphs contain single thoughts/topics, but do you 
think of someone speaking "in paragraphs?"  I generally constrain that 
to written word, but perhaps that is not accurate.


>> But all of that is irrelevant, IMHO, because the markup 
unequivocally defines what is a paragraph, heading, etc. There's no 
inferring of structure as in listening/transcribing speech. The 
structure can be defined in the markup in a way that it can't be in 
print (where you have to usual visual representations) or speech (where 
you use pauses, inflections, etc).


Right (and, "sort of" - see below)!  I'm saying the structure itself is 
best-suited for (and derived from) a literary document, that in its very 
nature a visual context is assumed (reading/looking).  If this were not 
the case, we wouldn't have to go to extra lengths to make pages 
"accessible" for non-visual users.  The fact that we have to add 
parameters and extra data for non-visual users should show us that the 
underlying framework is tailored to visual users.  Tape a 30 second 
conversation between a husband and a wife, and there are no "headers" or 
"pages".  It's a different ball game.


>> How do you explain the fact that blind users can quite happily 
understand the structure of semantic XHTML documents? If it's so 
inherently visual, they should be at a complete loss. However, *because* 
the structure is agnostic in regards to how it's output (visually, 
aurally, whatever), that's not the case.


That's easy: they need a tool to take what a browser would give them and 
instead provide the information to them in a format more meaningful to 
them.  Unless you're willing to argue that a web browser is simply one 
of many tools (instead of the primary and intended tool) for viewing 
X/HTML information, this seems semi-obvious.  If the structure was truly 
agnostic and unbiased towards visual presentation, you'd have people 
with perfect vision who would rather browse the web with a screen 
reader.  The idea that screen readers are for people who have hindered 
vision seems to point to a bias towards the visual presentation of 
X/HTML if available.


Accessibility, in my understanding (and I freely admit this could be a 
flawed understanding) is all about providing access to people without 
the ability to use a full-blown GUI, point-and-click web interface 
(whether due to disabilities or equipment [PDAs]).  Note that W3C 
defines accessibility as meeting the needs of users who don't (negative) 
have something that the typical desktop user has: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#Introduction (AListApart says 
similar things: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/).  
Accessibility doesn't seem to be about giving users a choice of 
interpretation as much as it is trying to give everyone the best 
usability experience possible - it doesn't say those experiences are 
equal or unbiased.


>> That's like saying "a speech, lecture or public reading has a 
primary visual intent".


Ahh, but that's different.  In those cases written language is serving 
the spoken, acting as notes.  That's why we practice speeches and public 
readings.  We want to communicate information that isn't in the written 
form via inflection, pause, and volume emphasis.


All I'm getting at is that we seem to have changed our thinking about a 
web that hasn't changed in nature, and it seems to be on the verge of 
counter-productive.  Sure, I want all people to be able to benefit from 
the sites I build, but the idea that X/HTML lends itself to auditory 
users as much as it lends itself to visual users I don't find very 
convincing.


Let me know if you have any other thoughts!  I've got to get to work.  :-)
-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Martin Heiden]

Nathan,

Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 14:04:09 haben Sie geschrieben:

> Similarly, strong and emphasized elements are derivations of bold
> and italicized type, respectively. If you think about listening to a
> speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives much less
> meaning to these "structural" elements (sometimes no meaning at
> all).

I do not follow your argumentation.  and  aren't
derivations of bold and italics but the otherway around. bold and
italics are visual expressions of emphasis. In speech you do the same
with intonation. If diferent people say the same thing in diferent
languages or even in the same, it sounds diferent, but in means of
structure you will still notice the emphasis, sometimes even without
knowing the language.

If you separate structure and visual expression, you've got much more
chances to express exactly what you want. Yo can choose to express
 as orange text and  as red instead of just being bound to
italics and bold. And a screenreader can still distinguish between
normal and strong emphasis. Maybe someday you'll be able to instruct
even the screenreader how you want to express this structure in aural
way.

> I would lump X/HTML in with that group of "inherently visual
> documents."  And someone will say, "But it's data recorded 
> electronically, not printed on a page," to which I would reply, "Data is
> data, whether stored in ink or in memory."  A hard drive can contain
> 00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an 
> Elvis mp3?  The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is 
> interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual.  Screen
> readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret
> books orally.  It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was
> visual.

You are mixing DATA, CONTENT, STRUCTURE and VISUALIZATION. These are
different layers of the product that you see on your monitor or hear
from your speakers. If you mix the compontents you loose flexibilty.
If you store a book as DATA on a harddrive expressed as STRUCTUREd
CONTENT - maybe technical as xml (or xhtml) - you can transform the
same STRUCTURE with it's CONTENT to a visual representation (like a
webpage) or using a screenreader to aural media (voice/mp3). You only
have to change the VISUALIZATION.

And I think that's huge a benefit.

 and  are much more meaningful than  or  because
they don't loose their meaning when transformed to different media.

Martin.

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nathan Rutman wrote:

Absolutely.  Many structural elements for the web have their origins in 
visual (i.e. written) communication.


A slippery slope. Taken the rationale to the extreme, heading elements 
are superfluous if you can simply say "make it bigger than the rest of 
the text" a la 


Paragraph elements derive their 
existence chiefly from visual cues.


Actually, I always saw paragraphs as one single thought or topic. Once 
you go on to another thought, you're starting a new paragraph. Yes, the 
name derives from the printed world ("graph" is the clue here), but the 
more abstract concept is not bound to print or the visual world.



You can try to "speak" a paragraph 
structure by adding a pause or changing ideas, but a concrete paragraph 
can only be seen, not heard.  Similarly, strong and emphasized elements 
are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively.  If you think 
about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives 
much less meaning to these "structural" elements (sometimes no meaning 
at all).


A linguistics professor of mine once noted that there are very distinct 
differences between written language and spoken language - they are not 
the same animal.  Three people could hear somebody speak a sentence, and 
come up with three different grammatically-correct representations of 
what they heard. 


But all of that is irrelevant, IMHO, because the markup unequivocally 
defines what is a paragraph, heading, etc. There's no inferring of 
structure as in listening/transcribing speech. The structure can be 
defined in the markup in a way that it can't be in print (where you have 
to usual visual represenations) or speech (where you use pauses, 
inflections, etc).


I would lump X/HTML in with that group of "inherently visual 
documents."


I beg to differ. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that blind users 
can quite happily understand the structure of semantic XHTML documents? 
If it's so inherently visual, they should be at a complete loss. 
However, *because* the structure is agnostic in regards to how it's 
output (visually, aurally, whatever), that's not the case.


> The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is

interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual.


Rubbish. See above. If something is a heading, it's still a heading even 
if I can't see it being displayed bigger than the rest of the text, and 
my assistive technology or whatever has to flag it some other way as 
being a heading.


Screen 
readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret 
books orally.  It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was 
visual.


Sorry, but...rubbish again. That's like saying "a speech, lecture or 
public reading has a primary visual intent".


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

>> Of course, one could argue that books, articles, any piece of print 
is inherently a visual document. Therefore it makes sense that it needs 
a visual hint to present structure. It's one of the only ways (combined 
with things like layout etc) that can infer some sort of hierarchy and 
structure to a document. Should this purely visual solution be applied 
on the web, where the markup itself can provide the structure?


Absolutely.  Many structural elements for the web have their origins in 
visual (i.e. written) communication.  Paragraph elements derive their 
existence chiefly from visual cues.  You can try to "speak" a paragraph 
structure by adding a pause or changing ideas, but a concrete paragraph 
can only be seen, not heard.  Similarly, strong and emphasized elements 
are derivations of bold and italicized type, respectively.  If you think 
about listening to a speech verses reading a speech, the oral form gives 
much less meaning to these "structural" elements (sometimes no meaning 
at all).


A linguistics professor of mine once noted that there are very distinct 
differences between written language and spoken language - they are not 
the same animal.  Three people could hear somebody speak a sentence, and 
come up with three different grammatically-correct representations of 
what they heard.  Conversely (and I think this is even more prevalent), 
three people can speak the exact same sentence with three different 
styles of annunciation, and all be true to grammar.  Yet in the same 
realm of language (oral to oral, written to written), the results would 
be much more accurate.


Sometimes it can seem like this separation of structure from 
presentation is an attempt to extract data from language (language being 
the expression of data).  If that's the case, we'll see how it goes, but 
I would think that the web (just like any other medium) has barriers and 
assumed guidelines.  If we strive for too much separation, we might 
start entering the realm of meaninglessness.


I would lump X/HTML in with that group of "inherently visual 
documents."  And someone will say, "But it's data recorded 
electronically, not printed on a page," to which I would reply, "Data is 
data, whether stored in ink or in memory."  A hard drive can contain 
00010111, but whose to say whether that's a character or part of an 
Elvis mp3?  The meaningfulness of data is largely in how it is 
interpreted, and the primary interpretation of X/HTML is visual.  Screen 
readers can interpret websites orally just as audio books can interpret 
books orally.  It doesn't change the idea that the primary intent was 
visual.


Anyway, that's what I think.  Hopefully I won't be accused of "bloviating".
-Nate

P.S.  If XHTML 2.0 wants to replace HR with a more meaningful tag name, 
that's fine.  I'm just saying that I think we need the functionality of 
that kind of element.


*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

>> I believe it was renamed from  because (like ) it is not 
necessarily horizontal.


Oh, that's an interesting point.  I hadn't considered that implication.

-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nathan Rutman wrote:

My point is a simple one.  I mean that if we look outside of the web 
where horizontal rules are applied (which is probably the HR tag's 
origin), we see that they have relevance to content.


Of course, one could argue that books, articles, any piece of print is 
inherently a visual document. Therefore it makes sense that it needs a 
visual hint to present structure. It's one of the only ways (combined 
with things like layout etc) that can infer some sort of hierarchy and 
structure to a document. Should this purely visual solution be applied 
on the web, where the markup itself can provide the structure?


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Robin Berjon]

Martin Heiden wrote:

I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to
use something like , too, because it sets a bracket around
the content which has to be separated. But I guess that it is easier
to use  for example in a dynamic drop down menu to divide
it into sections than to use brackets and define that the last one
doesn't need a border-bottom.


Well as you know, XHTML 2 has  as well. I think  
serves a different purpose, which is to indicate that there is a 
(surprise) separation here in the text that does not map neatly to a 
cutting up of the text into hierarchical chunks as  does. This 
is most frequently seen in novels and poems where you will see 
separators rendered for instance as three little stars:


   *
  * *

or some such device. It avoids having to add levels of depths in the 
structuration of your text for the single purpose of having that 
separation marked out when such structure would be otherwise 
meaningless. In musical terms it is more of a rest than other 
structuring devices such as bars.


I believe it was renamed from  because (like ) it is not 
necessarily horizontal.


--
Robin Berjon
  Senior Research Scientist
  Expway, http://expway.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Martin Heiden wrote:


I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to
use something like , too, because it sets a bracket around
the content which has to be separated. 


That's my feeling as well. It comes down between


blah1 blah1


blah2 blah2


and

blah1 blah1

blah2 blah2

The second one is obviously more verbose, but I feel that the first is 
more structured. Separations should be inferred by the fact that a 
section has been closed and a new section started. However, I'm not 
really hardline about it and can see the argument from both sides...


--
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
**

Re: [WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

Can you 'xplain what that means? Maybe I missed your point. Seems like

bloviating.


"Bloviating," huh?  I learned a new word today.  :-)

My point is a simple one.  I mean that if we look outside of the web 
where horizontal rules are applied (which is probably the HR tag's 
origin), we see that they have relevance to content.  Therefore, if we 
want to easily portray that content (books, articles, journals, etc.) on 
the web, something like the HR tag is needed, otherwise we loose some 
document portability.


Let me know if I can clarify further,
-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Martin Heiden]

Hi!

Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2005 um 05:33:00 haben Sie geschrieben:

> Am I alone in feeling that  should be depreciated in favor of CSS
> borders? Especially with  in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what
> semantic or even structural value does  have? Every argument for
> its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related.

XHTML 2.0 replaces  with  which has a more structural
meaning than horizontal rule.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_separator

I'm not shure if an empty separator element is needed. I'd prefer to
use something like , too, because it sets a bracket around
the content which has to be separated. But I guess that it is easier
to use  for example in a dynamic drop down menu to divide
it into sections than to use brackets and define that the last one
doesn't need a border-bottom.

Martin.

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Rick Faaberg]

On 7/12/05 3:06 AM "Nathan Rutman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:

> However, I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in
> other mediums, we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web,
> especially if we want a web that can store content from those other mediums.

Can you 'xplain what that means? Maybe I missed your point. Seems like
bloviating.

Rick

**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Nathan Rutman]

I think the presentation/structure dichotomy is a bit misleading...let's 
talk about presentation/content (the "structure" of a page makes me 
think of its presentation rather than the content that the presentation 
is presenting).


And I'll just throw this out there: Does anyone know how screen readers 
handle HR's?


The use I see for HR is not presentational, par se, but rather to 
separate large amounts of content and make it more readable.  It is the 
web's equivalent to a novel's line of asterisks, used to communicate a 
break in plot, location, or time, and is therefore part of the content 
just like paragraphs are.  A border fails to complete this purpose for 
two reasons:


(1) A border must be associated with a container element.  Thus, in 
order to logically break apart large parts of text, the text cannot be 
contained in the "same flow" within one container.  One might say that 
you could easily add a border and appropriate margin to even something 
as simple as a paragraph tag, but that ignores the use specified above.  
If I have a chapter or a report, the horizontal rule is a characteristic 
of that larger unit, not the last paragraph that occurs before the break.


(2) A border will vanish should the style/application change.  The 
reason I asked about screen readers is that an HR used correctly is part 
of the content.  It dictates how that content should be subdivided and 
interpreted.  Think of what horizontal rules accomplish in books, 
journals, magazines, and other text-oriented atmospheres.  Is it 
presentation?  Sure.  Just like paragraph breaks (or even commas and 
periods) are presentation - they provide a basic building block for 
readable content, and are so basic that they become a part of the 
content.  Deliver that content to a website, a publication, or an oral 
presentation, and in each circumstance the break should have an effect 
to that delivery, whether it's a visual line or a pause in delivery to 
communicate a division to listeners.


Now, having said this I realize that W3C does not agree in the strictest 
sense:


"The HR element causes a horizontal rule to be *rendered by visual* user 
agents."

(http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/graphics.html#h-15.3)

However, I think if we look at the larger use of horizontal rules in 
other mediums, we'll see that there's still a place for them on the web, 
especially if we want a web that can store content from those other mediums.


What are your thoughts?  Did I convince you?  ;-)

-Nate

*Nathan Rutman* ([EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Corporate Communications Designer

*Solvepoint Corporation*
882 South Matlack Street, Suite 110
West Chester, PA 19382
800.388.1850 x1208
484.356.0990 (fax)
www.solvepoint.com 



Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


Kenny Graham wrote:


Am I alone in feeling that  should be depreciated in favor of CSS
 borders? Especially with  in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what 
semantic or even structural value does  have? Every argument for 
its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related.



Well, I only use  for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from
graphical browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing
content at times. Adds a little structure...

Borders and other types of separators are fine, so those are preferred
for presentational use in graphical browsers.

If the future brings better solutions, then I'll probably use those
instead - once the browsers have caught up.

regards
Georg



**
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] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Kenny Graham wrote:

Am I alone in feeling that  should be depreciated in favor of CSS
 borders? Especially with  in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what 
semantic or even structural value does  have? Every argument for 
its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related.


Well, I only use  for non-CSS browsers / software (hidden from
graphical browsers), so I find it to be a handy element for dividing
content at times. Adds a little structure...

Borders and other types of separators are fine, so those are preferred
for presentational use in graphical browsers.

If the future brings better solutions, then I'll probably use those
instead - once the browsers have caught up.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] HR - Presentation or Structure?

[Kenny Graham]

Am I alone in feeling that  should be depreciated in favor of CSS
borders? Especially with  in the XHTML 2.0 drafts, what
semantic or even structural value does  have? Every argument for
its retention that I've heard so far has been presentation related.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**