W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2007

[whatwg] several messages about HTML5

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:32:44 +0900
Message-ID: <333DD319-5F60-484F-89BA-B8992005A3AF@w3.org>

Le 21 f?vr. 2007 ? 11:39, Ian Hickson a ?crit :
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Vlad Alexander (xhtml.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> ...We could require editors to do this, but since nobody knows  
>>> how to
>>> do it, it would be a stupid requirement. ...
>>
>> Is it due to a flaw in HTML that it is difficult to build authoring
>> tools, such as WYSIWYG editors, that generate markup rich in  
>> semantics,
>> embody best-practices and can be easily used by non-technical people?
>
> No, I think it's just something that is fundamentally hard. People  
> think
> visually, trying to ask a Web designer to think in terms of (e.g.)  
> headers
> instead of font sizes is just something that WYSIWYG implementors  
> and UI
> researchers simply haven't solved yet. Personally I don't think it's a
> lost cause, but we're just not there yet.

"Web designer" the term is too broad.
There will be people concerned by markup structures, some not.  
Exactly the same way when people are using MS Office Word, which has  
two main modes: visual and structural. Structural mode in word helps  
to achieve indexes of figures, table of contents, automatic styling.

I do not think it relies on categories of people but more on ROI  
(Return On Investment), if someone has benefits structuring  
information, they will do it. If there are no *direct and personal*  
benefits, they will not do it, except if constrained.

Constrains can be "controlled editing" for example. What I mean is  
the type of editing, there is in an Addressbook, in a library  
software, in Web services with UIs driven by AJAX (photo services,  
messaging, calendaring, etc.)

Constraining someone to make structural editing if he/she doesn't  
need it would be like constraining someone to structure the free note  
taking on the back of a paper envelop or how to organize a collage  
and text diary. It is likely to fail on massive scale. The question  
in this case is HTML the best technology to address sites like  
MySpace (scrapbook diary).


>> Since much of the content on the Web is created using such authoring
>> tools, can we ever achieve a semantically rich and accessible Web?
>
> There will always be a continuum of sites from the unusable to the  
> very
> accessible. As with all fields of human endeavour, there will  
> always be
> the highly competent Web designers who understand fundamentally how to
> build device-independent sites that cater to all kinds of users,  
> and there
> will always be the inexperienced and ignorant Web designers who  
> think only
> in terms of their own personal experience, targetting a specific  
> browser
> on a specific computer without taking into account any other potential
> user experience.



> Probably the best we can do is design the language to make "the right
> thing" easier, and invest more heavily in education. In this regard  
> HTML
> is in the same boat as more important subjects; I imagine that as we
> improve the quality of education in general, understanding of the
> importance of accessibility and related topics will improve as well.

+1

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 19:32:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:32 UTC