- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:20:35 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9876 Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shelleyp@burningbird.net --- Comment #4 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-08-27 12:20:35 --- (In reply to comment #3) > I don't really understand the problem here. Figures (<figure> in HTML) are very > similar to sidebars (<aside> in HTML) in print — both are typically offset > from the main prose such that they can be moved around a little (or even a lot) > without changing the meaning of the document, the main difference is that > figures typically are referenced from the main prose while sidebars typically > are not, and figures typically are for units of content (an image, a table, a > listing) whereas sidebars tend to be prose. This is exactly what the spec says. > Both of these are generalities, though, with exceptions. The text in the spec > says all this. Where's the problem? You have an incorrect understanding of the difference between figures and sidebars in print. Figures are illustrative, which is why they are referenced in the text. They are a visual illustration, regardless of what edge case you may find. Book publishers tend to have specific requirements for figure content. For instance, O'Reilly insists that the figure contents be a PNG or a TIFF. Sidebars are text that contain information that's tangential to the current discussion. They are a way of providing a section of information that is of interest in the section, but not essential to the section. They may be anecdotal, or provide a history or other information that is interesting, but not necessary. They are given a title, and are rarely referenced in the text. The section should be short--preferably, to fit within a page. Some book publishers like sidebars, but may don't. You have to use with extreme caution, because they can be distracting. Figures, on the other hand, are encouraged because they can be clarifying. Tables are also another offset item. I've heard the term "floating block" used for these items, but the publishers I've written for just use table, figure, sidebar, block quote, code, etc. Typographically, they are offset, but only because the person creating the layout needs to be able to position the items because they don't split as cleanly as text and are handled as a solid block. Unlike a web page, a printed page is not malleable. People have been confused about the difference between figure and aside. They seem to be interchangeable in the spec, which undercuts their supposed semantic value. Considering all the discussions lately about incorrect use of table summary, or longdesc, etc, I would think you'd want to ensure there is no confusion as to the use and purpose of figure and aside. If the differences between the items are as vague as you say, based purely on structure of content, and not purpose of content, then you should consider eliminating one or the other. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 12:20:37 UTC