Re: Isn't the word "banner" too presentational and none-semantic?

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the detailed explanations of the history of the naming of this
role. I understand.

Sincerely,
Ian Yang

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> First, I agree with you that the term "banner" has connotations of position
> which are unfortunate.
> The root of the term -- and the practice of positioning something at the
> top of the page is a throw back to the physical medium of newspapers, where
> a folded paper on a newstand used that very finite piece of space to
> distinguish itself from all the other papers at a newstand.
> A website doesn't needs this distinction-- the info is in the page title
> for one thing, and of course you got to the page yourself so one assumes
> most of the time you know where you were going. There is no compelling
> reason for using the top of the page for information that remains static
> throughout a website. In fact it is a waste of the most important part of
> the page. But like all newly adopted forms of communication, we mimic what
> has come before.
>
> Ironically, it is taking mobile to make a lot of designers rethink some of
> these print-biased baggage we've brought along with us. But instead of
> applying it as a principle of web design, I'm beginning to see many
> designers distinguish between web and desktop design, instead of letting
> the design respond gracefully to the platform.
>
> All of this is to say it would have been better to term the section
> "branding" or something functionally descriptive -- masthead, which someone
> suggests also has positioning connotations -- but I think the end result of
> the banner region is that it allows designation of a page region which has
> historically been an impediment to navigation for many users. It is a much
> better solution that "skip to main".
>
> Perhaps in ARIA 2, we will collectively have realized the value of giving
> function designations to all landmarks (another term I object to -- why not
> just use 'region' or a variant) and banner will be transformed.
>
> Michael Gower
> i b m  i n t e r a c t i v e
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:   Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>
> To:     Joe Chidzik <joe.chidzik@abilitynet.org.uk>
> Cc:     "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Date:   2012-07-25 05:16 AM
> Subject:        Re: Isn't the word "banner" too presentational and
>             none-semantic?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Chidzik <
> joe.chidzik@abilitynet.org.uk
> > wrote:
>   <snip>
>   >Comparing with the role "contentinfo" which is meaningfully named, why
>   was the inventor wanted to name the site header "banner" instead of a
>   more meaningful name like "contenthead" or "masthead"?
>
>   [Joe Chidzik]
>   >From Merriam-Webster, I get the following two definitions of banner
>   which seem relevant:
>   2: a headline in large type running across a newspaper page
>   3: a strip of cloth on which a sign is painted <welcome banners stretched
>   across the street>
>   (Ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banner)
>
>   3 makes sense; the banner is the entrance to the website\page which you
>   typically read before any other content.
>
>   Cheers
>   Joe
>
> But the word "banner" is still describing the object's shape, not its
> meaning and use. (try comparing it with "contentinfo") And a banner ad is
> referred to banner, too.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Ian Yang
>
>
>