RE: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables

Dear Tina,

Please explain the phrase "just AOL that"!

I misspoke, with my mythical HTML editor, the "B" icon would generate
<strong></strong>.  The "I" icon would generate <em></em>.  There would NOT
be a way to generate deprecated code (like <b> or <i> or <u>).  No reason
why the "B" icon couldn't be labeled "S" (except this would needlessly
confuse people).  The interface should be flexible, so if "icons and labels"
were selected, the text label for "B" would be "strong".  People would
figure it out, and learn a little about how web authoring is different than
desktop publishing.  Of course, everything available with icons would be
available with pull-down menus and hot keys.  We want this application to
work well with a screen reader after all!

My main point is that it is perfectly ridiculous that HTML editors pretend
to be word processors or desktop publishing suites.  I don't see anything
wrong with trying to take advantage of the graphical environment or people's
previous computer experiences.  Still, mark up requires a very different
mindset than most people are use to.  A good html tool would reinforce this
distinction rather than deliberately trying to hide it.

No, learning HTML isn't that hard, but there should be better software
available.  Should there not exist the option for people to generate decent
(i.e., formally valid) HTML using a word processor like interface?

Okay, maybe "huge" is too optimistic, but I bet a market is there already.
I predict that eventually people will get the message that the default
results these products produce is content that the federal government
considers unacceptable (and maybe even illegal).  At that point, the
graphical vendors will do an about face and clean up their act, and will be
embarrassed to have not done something sooner.  The first major WYSIWYG html
authoring tool that does this will have significant marketing advantage.

Just my two cents,
Bruce


> ----------
> From: 	Tina Marie Holmboe
> Sent: 	Tuesday, January 16, 2001 4:34 PM
> To: 	Bailey, Bruce; 'Ben Canning'
> Cc: 	'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'
> Subject: 	Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:57:27PM -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
> 
> > to the issues caused by posting invalid html.  Yes, browsers are suppose
> to
> > recover from these types of errors, but it is quite amateurish for an
> author
> > to rely on this.  It is pretty unexcusable for an automated tool to
> > facilitate faults!  We are quite intolerant of syntax errors in C and
> even
> > PDF and Word documents.  Why is HTML an exception to this rule?
> 
>   Let me just AOL that :)
> 
> > Personally, I think there is a huge untapped market for a "WYSIWYG" html
> > authoring package that doesn't pretend to do page layout.  It would
> produce
> > only valid HTML 4.01 strict.  If a user wanted fonts, they would have to
> do
> > this via style sheets.  There would be no "indent" button (or it would
> be
> > tied to CSS).  Clicking the large "B" button would produce <em> and not
> <b>.
> 
>   Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate
>   bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis.
> 
>   I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish
> to
>   even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects',
>   and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the
>   way to go
>   Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate
>   bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis.
> 
>   I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish
> to
>   even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects',
>   and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the
>   way to go..
> 
>   But apart from that I agree with you.
> 
> 
> -- 
>  - Tina
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2001 08:34:25 UTC