Re: [#293] Summary for tables

OK, we seem to have a different perspective. One of my basic assumptions is
that people who ignore our guidelines are also going to ignore what we say
they should do if they are ignoring us.

One of the features that I find useful in semantic-web based solutions is
that they don't actually rely on the author - they can be used by anyone.
(True, in the scenario I suggested it is slightly easier for the author, but
only slightly...)

chaals

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Chris Ridpath wrote:

>> >My argument is that we should, as much as possible, provide a way for
>> >authors to override our guidelines while still keeping their pages
>> >accessible.
>>
>
>Not quite right. I should have expressed this as:
>
>My argument is that we should, as much as possible, provide a way for
>authors to override our guidelines as long as they notify the audience.
>
>Example 1:
>Guidelines say there must be good text/background contrast.
>Author uses yellow text on white background and states "I want this text to
>be difficult to read because of <some artistic reason>".

Many authors are using this, but without saying why (typically they think it
looks cool).

>Example 2:
>Guidelines say there should be clear navigation.
>Author has porously confusing navigation and states "Navigation is confusing
>because I want you to wander around."

I can wander around in a place that is well-signposted. In a maze I generally
get lost, so a more appropriate thing would be "I don't want you to find this
page again" - odd kind of statement really.

And most authors try to create clear navigation. There are ways the common
approaches can be improved, but not everyone can be bothered reading about
them. Let alone about how they should tell the world they couldn't be
bothered.

>Example 3:
>Guidelines say content should be understandable.
>Author creates easily misunderstood content and states "I am an anarchist -
>deal with it."



>Regarding the TH rule: If you really want to have THs in your layout table
>then you can. Just explicitly state that this is a layout table.

Agreed. I'm just proposing a different method - one that other people can
also use if the author didn't bother.

cheers

Chaals

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 13:19:38 UTC