W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: [3.1][2.4] Informative page titles: suggested solution

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 13:17:43 -0500
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000014836842@spamarrest.com>

Joe,

Some good points.


Couple of questions?

- RE page titles - I don't see where anyone said that people were
responsible for other people's pages.  The only comments I saw were that you
should make sure your pages had good titles.   Did I miss something?

- You noted that pages can have empty titles and still validate.  But many
inaccessible pages validate.  What were you getting at here? 

- you stated
Identify the contents" is a smaller and more appropriate burden than 
"make sure every imaginable Web-surfer realizes whether or not they've 
made a mistake."
Not sure where you got this from.  I think the suggestion was just to have
unique page titles that allowed the user to tell what was on the page they
landed on.  That sounds a lot like 
"Authors should use the [90]TITLE element to identify the contents of
document."
Was there some more severe wording for what had to be in the title?  (or
just a comment about how it could be helpful if a person landed on the wrong
page)? 


- you stated
Aren't 404s on target pages more of a problem? And now that I've
mentioned those, you're going to try to ban them, too, right?

Not sure I saw this anywhere on our list except in your post.  Are you
suggesting this?   If so I think you will find it hard to locate any working
group members who would agree.  If you aren't suggesting it - and no one
else has - why are you posting it to the group - or arguing against it?


Thanks 




 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Joe Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 12:52 PM
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Re: [3.1][2.4] Informative page titles: suggested solution


> Current phrase:
> Page titles are informative
> 
> Suggested phrase:
> All pages have informative titles

Not all Web structures are "pages." Further, <title></title> can be empty 
and still validate; it is possible to publish standards-compliant untitled 
pages.


> I think "all pages have informative titles" should be at least at level 2,
> perhaps even at level 1, because of the significance of the page title in
> orienting yourself in content. If you have crappy link text but
informative
> page titles, at least you'll know that you ended up in the wrong place.

People keep bringing that up. I don't see how it's an accessibility issue. 
The page I link to is only my responsibility when I control both pages. 
It's not my problem if you're confused by someone else's page. What 
someone else's page does isn't my problem in the slightest. I can only 
control what I can control; Q.E.D.

Further, the way to determine if you've reached the right page or not is 
to read and understand it in its entirety. Why is there an effort to 
load everything onto the title element?

The HTML spec states:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/global.html#edef-TITLE>

Authors should use the [90]TITLE element to identify the contents of
document.


"Identify the contents" is a smaller and more appropriate burden than 
"make sure every imaginable Web-surfer realizes whether or not they've 
made a mistake."

Also, um, how often, *really*, have you hit a link on a page and "ended up
in the wrong place"? Just how often does that happen on the real Web? You
may need to ask someone who experiences the real Web for an answer.
Exclude old domains that get scooped up by spammers in considering this
question. Aren't 404s on target pages more of a problem? And now that I've
mentioned those, you're going to try to ban them, too, right?

What real problem is this trying to solve? None, I'd say.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 14:17:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC