E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items

Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)

From: Pete Fairhurst
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 6:03AM
Subject: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
No previous message | Next message →

Hello again,

I've been thinking about how best you could markup footnotes in XHTML. I
like the numbered anchor/jump-to approach, but I was thinking about how to
make this more semantically richer over all.

Would placing the footnote items into a definition list be useful?
Specifically, I'm thinking of asterisked items as one site I work on
regularly requires their press releases be published online verbatim, and
these often include asterisked items within the main copy of the press
release.

What do you think? If I combined the numbered anchor/jump-to approach with
ID'd definition terms, inside a definition list at the foot of the page,
would that be more useful from an accessibility view.

I appreciate that, in the instance of asterisks in particular, this may not
be a very good use of semantics, but I'm interested to know other's thoughts
on this.

Thanks in advance.

- Pete

~~~~

"Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells

From: Chris Hoffman
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 7:06AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Pete,

A DD in a definition list describes whatever is in its associated DT. What would the DTs contain in your case, and how would the DDs describe them?

You could make a tenuous argument that sources "describe" the quotations attributed to them, but that's IMHO a very square peg in a very round hole.

An OL would make a lot more sense.

Regards,

Chris

On Nov 1, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Pete Fairhurst < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> I've been thinking about how best you could markup footnotes in XHTML. I
> like the numbered anchor/jump-to approach, but I was thinking about how to
> make this more semantically richer over all.
>
> Would placing the footnote items into a definition list be useful?
> Specifically, I'm thinking of asterisked items as one site I work on
> regularly requires their press releases be published online verbatim, and
> these often include asterisked items within the main copy of the press
> release.
>
> What do you think? If I combined the numbered anchor/jump-to approach with
> ID'd definition terms, inside a definition list at the foot of the page,
> would that be more useful from an accessibility view.
>
> I appreciate that, in the instance of asterisks in particular, this may not
> be a very good use of semantics, but I'm interested to know other's thoughts
> on this.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> - Pete
>
> ~~~~
>
> "Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells
>

From: Pratik Patel
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 7:12AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

Hello Pete,

Can you share some example code that would typify the approach you're
proposing. While I think I understand what you're trying to accomplish, I
want to be absolutely certain.

Pratik

From: Pete Fairhurst
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 8:30AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1 November 2010 13:05, Chris Hoffman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> You could make a tenuous argument that sources "describe" the quotations
> attributed to them, but that's IMHO a very square peg in a very round hole.
>

I suspect you're probably right, but can't help being curious. :)

On 1 November 2010 13:09, Pratik Patel < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Can you share some example code that would typify the approach you're
> proposing. While I think I understand what you're trying to accomplish, I
> want to be absolutely certain.

The code I had in mind - for my asterisk example - was roughly as follows
(apologies if this makes any of you cringe--just me kicking around a sketchy
idea in code):



<p>A passage of text in the main body of the page content which may make
one<a href="#footnote1">*</a> or perhaps two<a href="#footnote2">**</a>
references to related information or clauses, using asterisks. More content
would proceed after this, etc.</p>



<dl>
<dt id="footnote1">*</dt>
<dd>This is one example of a footnote, wrapped in a definition list and
using asterisks for notation.</dd>
<dt id="footnote2">**</dt>
<dd>A second example of a footnote using asterisk notation.</dd>
</dl>



That's it, basically. Nothing more complicated than that. Probably not a
great idea though, I suspect, as it won't provide the sort of
semantic/relational benefits I was hoping it might.

- Pete

~~~~

"Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells

From: Langum, Michael J
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 8:57AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

As long as we're discussing footnotes. Wouldn't a screen reader user want to be able to follow a footnote, and then return to the text (where he left)?

From a usability point of view (for AT) I've always considered it good practice to have a "back-link" at the close of the footnote that will take me back to the place in the main body where the initial footnote link was located.

Opinions or Comments?

-- Mike

From: Pete Fairhurst
Date: Mon, Nov 01 2010 9:06AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1 November 2010 14:55, Langum, Michael J < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> From a usability point of view (for AT) I've always considered it good
> practice to have a "back-link" at the close of the footnote that will take
> me back to the place in the main body where the initial footnote link was
> located.
>

I'm also interested to know thoughts/opinion on "back to..." links in
footnotes as well. I would normally do this, but left them out in my haste
to cobble together an example. Sorry if that confused things.

- Pete

~~~~

"Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells

From: Pete Fairhurst
Date: Tue, Nov 02 2010 5:27AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1 November 2010 14:30, Pete Fairhurst < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> 
>
> <p>A passage of text in the main body of the page content which may make
> one<a href="#footnote1" id="footnote1anchor">*</a> or perhaps two<a
> href="#footnote2" id="footnote2anchor">**</a> references to related
> information or clauses, using asterisks. More content would proceed after
> this, etc.</p>
> 
>
> 
> <dl>
> <dt id="footnote1">*</dt>
> <dd>This is one example of a footnote, wrapped in a definition list and
> using asterisks for notation. <a href="#footnote1anchor">↑</a></dd>
> <dt id="footnote2">**</dt>
> <dd>A second example of a footnote using asterisk notation. <a
> href="#footnote2anchor">↑</a></dd>
> </dl>
>
> 
>

So am I right in saying it's not effective to markup footnotes in this way -
specifically, using a DL - to improve semantics and accessibility?

Would a more traditional unordered list, with the same sort of link
structure, be the best thing to stick with?

- Pete

~~~~

"Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells

From: Nathalie Sequeira
Date: Wed, Nov 03 2010 2:36AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Pete,

>> From a usability point of view (for AT) I've always considered it good
>> practice to have a "back-link" at the close of the footnote that will take
>> me back to the place in the main body where the initial footnote link was
>> located.
>>
>
> I'm also interested to know thoughts/opinion on "back to..." links in
> footnotes as well. I would normally do this, but left them out in my haste
> to cobble together an example.
>
I find "back to.." links in footnotes very useul indeed, and I don't use
AT. I'd say they're great for everyone :)

Your dt+dd view of footnotes is interesting - I am a great fan of dl's
and have been finding many situations in which they seem to me to be
semantically the most appropriate (perhaps too many? a question that
arose for me the other day, so I may be overly biased in favor at the
moment :))

Looking at your concrete code example and seeing those asterisks as the
"definition term" did let me waver a bit at first (it's not even a
word?! should the referring text passage be repeated? but no, that
woulld add unnecessary fluff...), but on second thought not overly
much.... how does a screen reader read that? something like "asterisk
equals explanation/source" (Fangs emulator would represent it thus)?
That actually sounds rather rational to me, and CSS styling could give
the dl the "normal" look and feel of footnotes for sighted users...
And, what are footnotes? They give further information about the main
text,i.e, explain, define. Yes, they appear as a sort of "list" at the
text's end, but are they really a list, if I define a list as a set of
related items? They are formally related, yes, in being footnotes, and
when footnotes are numbered an ol does make sense to my mind. But
semantically, footnote 1 may have nothing to do at all with footnote 2 or 3.
So IMHO I do think you have a good case there for seeing footnote infos
as definitions.

on the side:
What actually troubled me most when I was required to mark up a text
with footnotes of late was the resulting link texts (in my case i, ii,
iii...) - that isn't really meaningful at all, i s it? wouldn't it be
preferable to link the text itself (after all, we've got "hypertext
markup" here, that offers this and other possibilities that printed text
just doesn't, like explaining acronyms inline). I ended up sticking to
the originl text's format, but this question remained quietly and
unresolved in the back of my mind .

It's great to be able to think such questions through together -
something I miss being able to do in my usual working environment, and
very fruitive!
Thanks,
Nathalie

From: ckrugman
Date: Wed, Nov 03 2010 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | Next message →

as a screen reader user that seems like a good idea but I haven't run in to
it very often when dealing with footnotes. As I primarily deal with legal
text where there are citations I just expect them to be found at the bottom
of a page or at the end of an article and if I really need to review or cite
the foot note I go to it but the back link is a good idea. I would suspect
however that there would be problems with this when there are documents that
contain dozens of foot notes.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: "Langum, Michael J" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items

> As long as we're discussing footnotes. Wouldn't a screen reader user want
> to be able to follow a footnote, and then return to the text (where he
> left)?
>
> From a usability point of view (for AT) I've always considered it good
> practice to have a "back-link" at the close of the footnote that will take
> me back to the place in the main body where the initial footnote link was
> located.
>
> Opinions or Comments?
>
> -- Mike
>
>
>

From: Pete Fairhurst
Date: Wed, Nov 03 2010 2:15PM
Subject: Re: Using a definition list for footnote/asterisked items
← Previous message | No next message

On 3 November 2010 08:34, Nathalie Sequeira < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Your dt+dd view of footnotes is interesting - I am a great fan of dl's
> and have been finding many situations in which they seem to me to be
> semantically the most appropriate (perhaps too many? a question that
> arose for me the other day, so I may be overly biased in favor at the
> moment :)) <snip />

On 3 November 2010 17:11, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> as a screen reader user that seems like a good idea but I haven't run in to
> it very often when dealing with footnotes. As I primarily deal with legal
> text where there are citations I just expect them to be found at the bottom
> of a page or at the end of an article and if I really need to review or
> cite
> the foot note I go to it but the back link is a good idea. I would suspect
> however that there would be problems with this when there are documents
> that
> contain dozens of foot notes.
>

Thank you both, very much. That's put my mind at rest and I'm confident -
as long as it's not for 3 dozen of the things! - using a well-linked DL is
the right approach for footnotes.

In particular, Nathalie, I too was worried about the idea that defining an
asterisk on a page one particular association... but then, what else are
asterisks really for in documents? Common writing standards (I'm just
talking from an English language point of view, mind) that's pretty much the
only time you see asterisks in copy; they really aren't used for anything
else.

Of course, there are other symbols writers use, like the "dagger" for
example. But the principle remains the same, which lead me to think that
this should, after all, be a decent, semantically appropriate use of a
definition list.

- Pete

~~~~

"Haste in art is almost always vulgarisation." H.G. Wells