Re: change proposal for <main>: possible validation warning heuristic for misuse

>Did you use the same dataset for analysis?

yes

regards
Steve

On 5 December 2012 07:30, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did you use the same dataset for analysis?
> Silvia.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Silvia,
>>
>> >Let's be careful what we write into the spec. We should not codify
>> something that is common usage right now, but won't work in the future.
>> Also, conversely, >we should not ignore something (Scooby Doo) that doesn't
>> work right now (because <header>, <nav> etc are not in common usage), but
>> might work very well >in a few years when most Web pages have picked up
>> <header>.
>>
>> I agree we should be careful. From the stats below [1] which are from the
>> same data set that i used to check Scooby, we should be seeing a much
>> better success rate for Scooby than is evident.
>>
>>  Rough stats on new element usage on HTML5 pages 28% nav, 16% article,
>>> 31% header, 28% footer, 13% aside, 24% section. data set:http://www.
>>> paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/04/h
>>> tml5-accessibility-chops-data-for-the-masses/ … <http://t.co/LGRwZBW9>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/270475603315146752
>>
>> regards
>> SteveF
>>
>> On 5 December 2012 06:56, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Steve Faulkner <
>>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 December 2012 22:19, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> > This would end up documenting the semi-mythical "Scooby Doo
>>>> algorithm" for
>>>> > cases when the <main> element is absent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I understand, the Scooby Doo algorithm concept was derived
>>>> from section '4.13.1 The main part of the content' of the spec. It was
>>>> named and further elucidated by bruce lawson [2] . Mike Taylor produced a
>>>> script based on the concept [3]
>>>>
>>>> today I created a bookmarklet from the script (adds a dashed border and
>>>> yellow background to what it identifies as the main content)
>>>>
>>>> Scooby Doo
>>>>
>>>> and tested it out on a hundred or so of the pages using <!DOCTYPE html>
>>>> [4] I found that in approximately 95% of cases the algorithm identified the
>>>> main content as either including all of the page content or an element at
>>>> the very start of the page. In other words it is of little to no use in
>>>> determining either what the main content consists of or where it starts.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think a much more useful algorithm would take into account id values
>>>> commonly used to identify the main content.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let's be careful what we write into the spec. We should not codify
>>> something that is common usage right now, but won't work in the future.
>>> Also, conversely, we should not ignore something (Scooby Doo) that doesn't
>>> work right now (because <header>, <nav> etc are not in common usage), but
>>> might work very well in a few years when most Web pages have picked up
>>> <header>. This is why I did my analysis assuming Web pages would use those
>>> new elements - where would Scooby Doo end up?
>>>
>>> So, you could re-run your analysis by adapting your bookmarklet to run
>>> Scooby Doo not just on the defined elements, but also on elements that have
>>> a @class of header, nav, etc. That may be a bit fairer on Scooby Doo.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Silvia.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/links.html#the-main-part-of-the-content
>>>> [2] http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2012/scooby-doo-content-element/
>>>> [3] http://pastie.org/4663081
>>>> [4] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>> SteveF
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 07:45:49 UTC