E-mail List Archives
Thread: RE: Can I make my family tree chart accessible
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Tue, Jul 22 2003 7:25AM
Subject: RE: Can I make my family tree chart accessible
No previous message | Next message →
Terence wrote:
> Lower cost
> The new version of this product costs significantly less than the
> previous one!
> Easier to use
> We've changed the product so that it's much easier to use!..."
I must agree with Terence that by restricting DL to only definitions of
terms, it would see litte if any use. I look at DL as an associative list
whereby the "term" is "described" in greater detail whether it be a word, a
phrase (Job Title with Job Description or Flower name with Flower
description) or any other similar relationships.
Just my 2cents (Canadian, which is about 1/2 cent US).
Jules
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Tue, Jul 22 2003 9:05AM
Subject: RE: Can I make my family tree chart accessible
← Previous message | Next message →
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> I must agree with Terence that by restricting DL to only definitions of
> terms, it would see litte if any use.
My point was that it really has little if any use, except for clear-cut
lists of actual definitions when you don't care too much about how it
looks like.
The W3C first defines DL as a definition list, then tells various foolish
things that absolutely contradic with the initial definition. The DL
element thus has no defined semantics, except in the sense that when using
it strictly for lists of definitions, you can't be wrong - but even for
them, normal lists or tables are often better. And it's poorly implemented
in browsers, in a manner that makes it fairly impossible to make them take
the preferred visual appearance using CSS.
There's hardly anything to be won using DL, since you can always use some
other markup, which is better formatted using simple CSS.
And considering accessibility, I think we should always be prepared to a
mode of rendering documents where the user agent explicitly tells the user
the markup of the page, in a manner that reflects the defined meanings of
elements. For example, a user agent _could_ (rather usefully IMHO) say
"blockquote" and "end of blockquote" or, more colloquially, "quote" and
"unquote", when it reads <blockquote>. Similarly, <dfn>foo</dfn>
could sensibly trigger verbose reading "foo (term being defined)".
And frames could be presented by explicitly reading the names of frames -
like many programs actually do. In fact, you could write a user style
sheet, using :before and :after pseudoelements, that generates such stuff
(though IE 6 sadly lacks support to this essential CSS 2 feature).
So are you prepared to hearing a browser say "Definition list follows.
Term: ... Definition: ... ... End of definitions." when it encounters a DL
element on your page? (Well, maybe browsers won't do that. What _should_
they do, then, to verbally convey the message of the markup that is
somehow reflected in the visual appearance. "Umm... let me think about
this... we might have a list of definitions, but it could also be just
a list of something with comments associated with the items, or maybe a
conversation. Let's say that I just read the markup and let you decide.
Here we go... DT ... DD ..."
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Fri, Aug 01 2003 7:08PM
Subject: Re: Can I make my family tree chart accessible
← Previous message | No next message
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 08:02 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> The W3C first defines DL as a definition list, then tells various
> foolish
> things that absolutely contradic with the initial definition.
Yeah, but that's part for the course for the HTML specification. :)
> The DL
> element thus has no defined semantics, except in the sense that when
> using
> it strictly for lists of definitions, you can't be wrong - but even for
> them, normal lists or tables are often better.
Well, seems to me that what it does is define a structure with little
meaning, whereby you have term-value pair relationships. It does it in
a typically ass-backwards way, but it's not inherently awful. Just
pretty unuseful in practice.
But then, any attempt to do any sort of intelligent markup in HTML (or
XHTML) is somewhat doomed anyway -- it's not a good language for the
kinds of things you and I would really like to do.
--Kynn
--
Kynn Bartlett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com
Shock & Awe Blog http://shock-awe.info
Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://inlandantiempire.org
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/