W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Isn't the word "banner" too presentational and none-semantic?

From: Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:11:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CABr1Fsf36w+6nHOk7+w2eKXdURvU5R0FHjwyFQyjXL0M8WNiaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Chidzik <joe.chidzik@abilitynet.org.uk>
Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Chidzik
<joe.chidzik@abilitynet.org.uk>wrote:

> <snip>
> >Comparing with the role "contentinfo" which is meaningfully named, why
> was the inventor wanted to name the site header "banner" instead of a more
> meaningful name like "contenthead" or "masthead"?
>
> [Joe Chidzik]
> From Merriam-Webster, I get the following two definitions of banner which
> seem relevant:
> 2: a headline in large type running across a newspaper page
> 3: a strip of cloth on which a sign is painted <welcome banners stretched
> across the street>
> (Ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banner)
>
> 3 makes sense; the banner is the entrance to the website\page which you
> typically read before any other content.
>
> Cheers
> Joe
>

But the word "banner" is still describing the object's shape, not its
meaning and use. (try comparing it with "contentinfo") And a banner ad is
referred to banner, too.


Sincerely,
Ian Yang
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 12:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:30 UTC