Re: [PHP] HTML5 <aside> description

Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 01:44 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> *haha* I've removed w3.org from the recipients list... so onwards to the 
>> content below...
>>
>>
>> Jochem Maas wrote:
>> > Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef:
>> >> From the editor's draft:
>> >>
>> >> "
>> >> The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of
>> >> content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside
>> >> element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such
>> >> sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography.
>> >>
>> >> The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or
>> >> sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other
>> >> content that is considered separate from the main content of the page.
>> >> "
>> >>
>> >> Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars,
>> >> advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often
>> >> represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often
>> >> represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is
>> >> fundamentally different.
>> >>
>> >> I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where
>> >> it says:
>> >>
>> >>     BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!!
>> >>
>> >> An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the
>> >> spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the
>> >> information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense.
>> >>
>> >> I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description.
>> > 
>> > as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the
>> > actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I
>> > really think this is too vague.
>> > 
>> > the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too
>> > mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled
>> > HTML5 tags (not mention browser support).
>> > 
>> > @Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a
>> > perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and
>> > semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather
>> > vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding)
>> > 
>> > personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the
>> > various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that,
>> > as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream.
>> > 
>> > As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly
>> > attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES
>> > (as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of
>> > building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general
>> > public.
>>
>> I can only somewhat agree with your assessment above. It is true that 
>> while many people still use broken browsers like IE6 and IE7; however, 
>> this should not completely dissuade us from improving the experience for 
>> those users that *do* choose standards compliant browsers. If we ignore 
>> those users because we don't see the point in wasting time on the IE* 
>> crowd, then we essentially weaken the argument in favour of embracing 
>> standards. While IE* Joe, doesn't give a damn about whether his browser 
>> supports <aside> or not, studious Jane really enjoys the enriched 
>> experience her browser provides because not only does it understand 
>> asides, but it provides a convenient extra facility that extracts them 
>> into a browsable list with excerpts taken from the surrounding text for 
>> context (inverting the relationship :). Then there's Jenny who's blind, 
>> she's listening to the content on the page and hears a little ding go 
>> off that indicates there's further information available that she can 
>> review-- she can choose to pull it up and listen to it, after which the 
>> reader returns to where she left off the original content. Alternatively 
>> she may choose not to interrupt the main flow of information, but again, 
>> similar to Jane's experience she can listen to each one afterwards in a 
>> summarized fashion.
>>
>> This is how serious organizations, and almost certainly Government, will 
>> markup their information. Regardless of whether everyone has a browser 
>> that supports the information. If the semantic markup improves usability 
>> and enriches the information, then it will be used to meet that purpose.
>>
>> > PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy
>> > his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his
>> > argumentation and opinion!
>>
>> Thanks... You've got me blushing :D
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob.
>> -- 
>> http://www.interjinn.com
>> Application and Templating Framework for PHP
>>
> 
> I'd say that from what I've heard, Governments aren't that good at 
> getting accessible sites up, so the chances of them using HTML5 
> semantically, well, the immediate future doesn't look too rosy!
> 
> Also, I thought I'd throw in my tuppence as to the use of <aside>. I'd 
> tend to try and relate it to a footnote in a book, or a boxout in a 
> magazine article. It's not integral to the content it's related to or 
> near, but acts as an aid to it should the reader wish.

I don't know about where you are, but Canadian government has very 
specific guidelines on how content should be marked up... and semantic 
use of tags is a clear part of that:

     "The institution respects the universal accessibility
      guidelines developed by the World Wide Web Consortium's Web
      Accessibility Initiative by ensuring compliance of its Web
      sites with the Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints of the
      Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG), with the
      following exception:

      WCAG  checkpoint 3.4 is superseded by requirement 2 of the
      Common Look and Feel Standards for the Internet, Part 3:
      Standard on Common Web Page Formats."

      http://

Reviewing some of the WCAG guidelines...

     3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation.
         [Priority 2]

     3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and
         use them according to specification. [Priority 2]

     3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2]

     3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for
         formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 2]

     5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers.
         [Priority 1]

     5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels
         of row or column headers, use markup to associate data
         cells and header cells. [Priority 1]

These are just the checkpoints, further reading into the checkpoints 
indicates that proper use of various tags such as <em>, <strong>, 
<abbr>, <acronym>, etc should be used.

This is meant to be followed by all Canadian Government websites and 
current hiring/contracting practices indicate experience with CLF2 
guidelines as being a requirement.

Cheers,
Rob.
-- 
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP