RE: The History of <aside> for sidebars

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> You're talking here about <header>/<footer> within an article context,
> where I agree with you.  I explicitly specified that I meant it in
> terms of (web)page structure, where the three regions are effectively
> identical in practice.

Why do you suggest that?  Most AT, certainly screen readers, process HTML 
data in a linier fashion, top to bottom.  The 'effect' of having divs 
contain content is identical, but the 'semantics' of header vs. footer are 
very real, and important, whether in an 'article' or within a (web)page: 
they are 'document structure' identifiers that have specific meaning.

> I'm agreeing with you again!  Yes, <header>/<footer>/<aside> all
> indicate that the contained content is not the main content.  In the
> context of an article they carry additional specific meaning, but in
> the context of a webpage they convey only a visual distinction.

No!  A blind person cannot see what a webpage footer looks like any more 
than they can an article footer, but they can grok what a footer *is*, so 
the semantic idea transcends simple visualization.  It's called a footer for 
a reason, and not a <pagebottom> (even though, in a visual sense they would 
be the same) and I cannot understand why you can agree to this concept in an 
'article' but not a (web)page - what exactly is the difference between the 
two? (JF scratches head)


Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 22:17:23 UTC