Re: Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics

While I'm not yet sure that there's a case for HTML5, it does address
something I've been thinking about for a while.  The use of semantically
attributed elements denoting functions "header", "footer", "nav", "menu"
are (already widely accepted to be) in widespread use - the report is
more evidence of that.

If our documents are intended to provide meaning to, or be decipherable
by, both human *and* machine then there is a case for some formalisation
of these functions.  Maybe this can be achieved in XHTML through some
form of meta data.

As XHTML/HTML is (with documents and user-agents) already in widespread
use, some extension mechanism is probably the only way to achieve this.

Google's own XML Sitemaps already provide a model for describing
sitewide meta data, though it would make slightly more sense if they
were also referenced in HTML meta data, (via the link element?).  It
would be relatively simple* to specify and construct a short document
that described the internal document structure of pages in the site.

Non-visual browsers could then navigate the page in question using lower
selection criteria.
E.g. a general "go to main nav" type function.



Thoughts?




*Simple to specify, getting people to agree to use it on the other hand...



Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> A survey from Google about Web Authoring Techniques.
>
> [[[
> Introduction
>
> Various people have, over the last few years, done studies into the
> popularity of authoring techniques. For example, looking at what HTML
> ids and classes are most common, and at how many sites validate (and
> yes, we know that we're not leading the way in terms of validation).
> ]]]
>
> -- Google Code: Web Authoring Statistics
> http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
> Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:19:35 GMT
>
>
> Ed Dumbill seems to have worries
>
> [[[
> That said, I'm quite disappointed with the ways these results have
> been presented.
>
> Firstly, the report as published has no author attribution. From the
> writing and other sources, I am given to understand it's Ian Hickson,
> the prime proponent behind WHATWG, but nowhere is this made plain. A
> date of publication would also be useful on the document.
>
> Secondly, the graphs are given as SVG, which is laudable, but leaves
> those using IE or pre-1.5 Firefox browsers out in the cold. There's
> nothing in the data that means they couldn't be presented as PNG
> images. This is simply making a statement about browsers.
>
> Thirdly, the report mixes political viewpoints about the HTML standard
> in with observations about the data. The report references WHATWG's
> HTML5 in various places without setting it in the context of the
> various ways forward. Hickson's views over XHTML 1.0 and the text/html
> media type were presented without recognition of it at least being a
> contentious issue, rather than a matter of fact. If authorship were
> attributed, this bias could be contextualised somewhat, but as it is
> it can only be construed as Google's endorsement of a particular
> viewpoint.
> ]]]
>
> -- Google web authoring stats: less spin please
> http://times.usefulinc.com/2006/01/26-google-stats
> Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:21:31 GMT
>
>
> Maybe is it because Ian Hickson is an employee of Google Inc.
>
> [[[
> On the work side, last week this Web log ended up being mentioned on
> hundreds of Web tech-heads' sites, as they amused themselves reading
> my frustrated parser reverse-engineering. Then around midweek I ended
> up being Slashdotted because of some research[1] I did that Google
> published. I love that Google let me do this research. I've been
> hoping to study authoring practices for years.
> ]]]
>
> -- Hixie's Natural Log
> http://ln.hixie.ch/
> Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:23:19 GMT
>
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
>
>
>
> --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 ***
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 

Director


pid@neutralgrey.net

ng m: (+44|0)7976 411939
ng w: www.neutralgrey.net

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is copyright (c)2005 neutral grey ltd
reg. in england: co.no.04927018

This message is intended only for the use of the individuals to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this transmission in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and all of its attachments.

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 09:37:10 UTC