Re: change proposal for <main>: possible validation warning heuristic for misuse

Hi Maciej,

>I'm pretty convinced by your data. Nevertheless, I think the suggested
changes would make the <main> spec even stronger.

I agree and will respond in detail to the suggestions.

regards
steve

On 3 December 2012 00:49, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> <chair hat off>
>
> I'm pretty convinced by your data. Nevertheless, I think the suggested
> changes would make the <main> spec even stronger.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> have been analysing some of the data I collected previously [1]. Of 50
> pages [2] I have looked at so far (from the set of 400+ pages[3] that I
> have added styles to provide easy visual identification of elements
> with id=main|content)   > 90% of elements with an id=main|content do indeed
> contain content that excludes header/nav/footer type content.
>
> you can see the results and source pages for your selves:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlVP5_A996c5dHozOW14RkF4NEdEUFRvemxCZ2I4Z3c
>
> I think this is a reasonable indication (please point out if my analysis
> is incorrect0 that there is a common concept of what is considered the main
> content area of a document and that fears of misuse of an element based on
> this concept are over emphasised.
>
> Do I need to analyse more of the data set or is this enough?
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0109.html
> [2] starting from 296 in the list [RDS.ca<http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/www.rds.ca/index.html>
> ]
> [3] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/
>
> regards
> SteveF
>
> On 2 December 2012 19:10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think this will be a lot more effective at limiting the harm from
>>> potential improper use of <main> than a conformance error. A conformance
>>> error is a discouragement for some authors, but most content is
>>> non-conforming. Meanwhile, implementation behavior can avoid incorrectly
>>> identifying the main content even in the face of authors who do not
>>> prioritize document conformance.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Could that also include a rule as to what to do in case there is both a
>> <main> and a role="main" on the page? While it's a conformance error,
>> browsers still need to decide which one to expose to AT. So, maybe in this
>> case it would be best to expose the element with role="main" only?
>>
>>
>> Yes, I think it would be good to have rules to disambiguate cases like
>> this. It probably makes the most sense for explicit role=main to win, but I
>> could also imagine having whichever appears first win.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with this suggestion. I would also like to see "Scooby Doo"
>>> documented properly. I do wonder, however, since (if?) it is only
>>> accessibility related, whether it should be in the HTML spec, or in the
>>> mapping spec of Stever, or in a WCAG spec.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think a "find the main content" algorithm has non-accessibility uses
>>> as well, for example for data mining tools, or for "readability" style
>>> tools or browser features.
>>>
>>
>> Right. So it should indeed be part of the extension spec, and thus
>> ultimately of HTML, right?
>>
>>
>> If the <main> extension ended up integrated in the HTML spec, then I
>> think the HTML spec would clearly be the right place for a "find the main
>> content" algorithm.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>