Re: 4.13.1 Bread crumb navigation - use of right angle brackets

On 17 September 2013 19:17, Jens O. Meiert <jens@meiert.com> wrote:

> > It is GREATER THAN sign, and I agree that it is not adequate. But it has
> > become common enough to become tolerable practice. A better character is
> a
> > real arrow, “→”.
>
> +1. (It’s an AT matter now to deal with this though, in case
> pronunciation in a screen reader is faulty—I couldn’t test.)
>
> That’s the delimiter issue.
>

Delimiters shouldn't be an issue, as it's a display thing which can be
easily managed with CSS. Screen-readers should be able to figure out the
relation by looking at the mark-up only.


>
> What’s the exact problem with respect to the markup now? The thread
> has grown significantly. So far I agree with Mallory in that list
> markup would not be sufficient for breadcrumbs. That includes both
> single and nested lists.
>

Please explain what is not sufficient about this?
Nested lists are terribly cumbersome when it comes to mark-up, it's far
from elegant, but it's semantically sound.


>
> With lists having being the closest option, using <div> with an ID
> like “breadcrumb,” inferring some meaning, has always appeared to be a
> sensible choice. I think what you, Steve, used in 4.13.2 originally
> was more recommendable.
>

Div's with id's bare 0 semantical meaning, so that's really not an option.
Divs are block level styling hooks and should be used as such. With all due
respect, but it's probably the worst choice. ;-)


>
> The current <nav>/<ol> approach is problematic because, as has been
> described, breadcrumbs are not a list of options of equal value.
>

Depending on how you use them (really... the word we use for this,
"breadcrumb", is so miss-leading, as it seems some authors want to
communicate a tree-like path in a website, while others see it as a list of
steps).
In both cases, I think "list" is a key-word, either it being hierarchical,
or "flat", it's still a list of steps. Therefore a list should be
sufficient, <ol> would be the best as there is an order to the path.

Again, unless the author specifically doesn't want to communicate an order,
then a <ul> might be more sensible, or he/she should rethink if it's a good
idea to have no relation between the items ;-)


>
> --
> Jens O. Meiert
> http://meiert.com/en/
>
> ✂ http://onethousandthankyous.org/
>
>