W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: HEADERS, FOR whom - any ID?

From: Ben 'Cerbera' Millard <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 23:58:59 +0100
Message-ID: <004b01c7d6eb$0d4b0f30$0201a8c0@ben9xr3up2lv7v>
To: "Philip Taylor" <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "HTMLWG" <public-html@w3.org>

Philip Taylor wrote:
> Ben 'Cerbera' Millard wrote:
>> Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> [2 other points]
>>> * It is very widely used in reality.
>> Do you have research to back up the third point?
> http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/survey/2007-07-17/analyse.cgi/attr/for
> http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/survey/2007-07-17/analyse.cgi/attr/headers
> From looking at about eight thousand pages (details on the index page) 
> [...]

So when <label> is used, two thirds of the time for="" was present. That 
matches what I find.

But I was interested in a different point:

* In my professional experience, <label for> is not "very widely used in 
reality" compared to how often labelling text does not use it.
* Sites I have handed over to clients with correct <label for> sometimes get 
broken by them later on [2]. (When <label> is present with a for="" 
attribute it can still be broken.)
* In my everyday browsing I rarely find clickable labels (<label for>). I 
commonly find unclickable labels (either <td> or not marked up at all).

As I don't have figures for this, feel free to be skeptical. Your study, 
although very useful, doesn't have numbers for this particular subject.

[1] <http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/survey/2007-07-17/analyse.cgi/index>
[2] <https://umbel.co.uk/Buy.aspx?id=151>

--
Ben 'Cerbera' Millard
Collections of Interesting Data Tables
<http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/readme.html> 
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 22:59:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:03 GMT