- From: George Olsen <golsen@2lm.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:49:02 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
John Udall wrote: > From practically the beginning, some people just didn't get it. They >tried to force HTML to make a document "look" just right. And it didn't >work. If you resized your browser window, or viewed the document on a >different platform, or in a different browser and the document just didn't >"look" the same. The information content was still there, but the "look" >wasn't right. Some people just felt they had to force it. That's why we >have all of these documents that use tables to control display which we're >always complaining about. Not to rehash the past, but rather than blaming users, I think the widespread use of tables for layout (and I will be the first the admit that they're a kludgy workaround that causes me no end of grief) shows that the spec was insufficient for the needs of users. Presentation *can be* an important aid to comprehension, as shown by numerous studies that are cited in Karen Shriver's "Dynamics of Document Design." > I think that part of the problem is that separating document structure >from document display is not a process that is intuitive for many people. >It didn't help that early browsers did not offer a lot of control or >customization over the final "look" of a document. One reason the populace rebeled is that earlier HTML and browsers forced us to abandon "user interface" techniques for content that have been developed and beta tested over the past five centures (arguably I could go back further, the advent of the printing press started the standardization of these techniques). HTML in those days was better suited for being read by machines than by people. (Incidently, the one legibility study of SGML that I know of, found SGML documents to be difficult for people to understand precisely because the documents lacked the those sort of presentation aids I'm talking about.) Yes, the Web is *not* print, and I do believe pages should be scalable to multiple browsers, monitors and platforms. However, print has had a long time to experiment and develop principles for how to present content effectively. For example, the guideline that leading needs to be increased as line length increases to maintain legibility is a principle that works regardless of whether it's a book, a billboard, or a computer monitor. While admittedly most users weren't aware of this at a conscious level (since HTML was like the DTP revolution all over again), those of us who did were found HTML to be painful to work with. >A good XML markup tool will provide >affordances for capturing the structure of a document. Basic style sheets >for common output devices, coupled with a good tool for customizing them >will give people the control that they want over the look of the final >product without alientating particular user populations. I feel like we're now at the point where we really starting to get all three legs of the tripod -- HTML for basic structural elements, CSS for presentation and XML to handle the data about the content, which could include the structural data if needed. Once we reach the point where these are widely supported, I'm willing to hang up my mask and live within the law. The biggest problem I have now if supporting legacy documents and that means mixing in layout tables for the moment. While I realize that many here find using tables for layout abhorrent, not providing some sort of <NOCSS-P> capability to author a combined CSS-P/HTML 3.2 document makes it difficult for me to transition to CSS-P thus slowing adoption of the standard. Clients simply aren't go to pay me double so that I can do a CSS-P version and a HTML 3.2 tables version. And presentation is important enough to them that they won't accept what happens when an older browser tries intrepret a CSS-P page. So I kludge yet again and use CSS-1 and tables. > I don't think that the move to a "pure" separation between document >structure and display is impossible. I'm a bit more dubious. In my experience, presenting content most effectively often entails intertwining structure and display. For example, take the widely-used two-column layout of main content and secondary content. In print it's common "hang" secondary content in the side column next to the main content it relates to. Yes, it's possible to make it a footnote at put it at the bottom of the page (which can be even more problematic on a Web page due to the length) but that's not nearly as effective a presentation of the information. (It's also near-impossible to do in HTML without gymnastics despite the fact that this is an ideal way to handle links to related material, since you can elaborate about the link, which contributes to better UI, without disrupting flow of the main content.) Now I realize you can argue back that my footnote example proves that the structure is independent of the presentation, which is true. My point is that it's less legible and poorer UI, although I believe the "footnote option" certainly should be a fallback for text-only or low-resolution browsers like PDAs. Admittedly, I'm still wading through the details of entire CSS specs, but it doesn't seem like there's an easy way for CSS-P to be changed on the fly to cover a situation like this. (If I'm wrong, please tell me where to look.) Perhaps XML and XSL are the answer here, but I won't comment since I haven't read the specs. >The >people who will be hard to bring around are those who don't even know what >the standard is, and they don't subscribe to www-style. Again I think one of the keys is making sure that standards meet the needs of those using them, which makes it a lot easier to convince people to live within the standards. I'd agree everyone is trying to be helpful here, I just think the academic/programming backgrounds of many of those here have sometimes left blindspots to important issues of how HTML/CSS/XML etc. will likely be used by those outside the academic/programming circles. George Olsen Web Architect/Designer mailto:golsen@2lm.com 2-Lane Media http://www.2lm.com vox 310/473-3706 x2225 fax 310/473-6736
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 1998 17:48:05 UTC