- From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 13:44:34 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
At 9:52 AM -0600 2/3/05, Dan Connolly wrote: >I disagree with the main point of this draft QA tip, and >I have a number of comments on the details as well. > > Draft - Make readable URIs > http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/readable-uri > >It seems quite counter to the principles of web architecture: > >[[ >It is tempting to guess the nature of a resource by inspection of a URI >that identifies it. However, the Web is designed so that agents >communicate resource information state through representations, not >identifiers. In general, one cannot determine the type of a resource >representation by inspecting a URI for that resource. For example, the >".html" at the end of "http://example.com/page.html" provides no >guarantee that representations of the identified resource will be served >with the Internet media type "text/html". The publisher is free to >allocate identifiers and define how they are served. >]] > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity Fortunately the Web as practiced today is more "you get what you expect" than the "you get what you get" policy that is the formal policy of HTTP and is suggested in this quote. >Let's please do *not* encourage users to remember nor type URIs. That's gold-plated bad advice. It's anti-blind. It is indeed discouraging that after all these years you, Dan, haven't learned any more HCI than to say this. Or internalized the intrinsically man-machine nature of the Web system. Maybe we should rewrite the tip to make it clearer than not all URIs can be, or should try to be, mnemonic. But some tip in this vein has merit -- should be in the collection of tips. The best Web practice with appropriate use of mnemonic URIs is better practice than the best Web practice without any. And it's easy for the point-and-click generation to overlook this. That's why we have quality tips. The user's recallable context for the current state of a Web dialog is an asset in making the Web work well [1]. We should capitalize on this capability, even as we work not to rely on it too much. There's a both-and of good practices, here. "Many ways to win" wins. The architecture document is correct. At the bottom line, it asserts the following as good practice: <quote cite= "http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity"> >Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of >the referenced resource. </quote> That statement addresses what automated processes should and should not do. Not people. People will recall or not recall URIs as a function of their mnemonicity. Quite independently from anything the W3C can say or do. And the objectives of both user and publisher will be better served by an appropriate, measured use of mnemonic URIs in publishing a web presence. Not every URI can be mnemonic. In fact, counting all URIs at equal weight, the majority won't be. But few sites would not benefit by a stable hierarchical structure which is mirrored in mnemonic paths in URIs. Increasing the word-of-mouth flow of URIs into typing adds value to the Web. Non-trivial value at the very least for those whose primary display medium is audio. People will recall URIs, and not page TITLEs, because of their role in direct navigation through the address bar (or whatever you wish to call it). You remember what you can act on, for what you can do with it. The clear value of mnemonic URIs is demonstrated by the land rush in domain name registrations. It's a fact. Don't try to play King Canute. Note the [to me annoying] ascendance of alpha mnemonics in propagandizing business phone numbers. They're harder to type but easier to remember. Takes more time, suffers fewer failures of recall. Net win. Global direct navigation, the ability to start browsing from a user-entered URI is one of the democratizing features of the Web. Don't trash it. Compare with W3C statements about 'deep linking' as valuable. If it's worth offering these 'resources' to agents, it's worth making them controllable as language by people. Cut and paste works fine with arbitrary, opaque URIs. Of course, it is error-prone in speech-only screen reader delivery contexts. Real email, not ideal email, has a propensity to mangle the passing of URIs among friends. Things that mean something and spell right from hearing have an edge in arrival-at-destination. Word-of-mouth referrals will more likely succeed if there is a memorable, typable value of a URI that gets the user within two or three clicks of paydirt. These add to the likelihood that your page/site/content will reach more people, over and above the people you reach by inbound links. [paydirt = the onset of net positive value added, in the user's value system, for engaging in this thread of browsing.] On the other hand, I have to quickly say that one has to recognize the limitations of hierarchical structure for web presences. They should have some, but it can't be all things to all browsing users. The graph of active associations in hypertext allows people to arrive at paydirt via many paths. Hierarchies get less and less effective in communicating what is there beyond a depth around three levels. A tuple-space index is more likely to connect with the user's intent. Although squeezed between link-following and full-text search, site hierarchy, reinforced by mnemonic-path URIs, still has a contribution to make to Web user-friendliness and hence effectiveness. Well-built websites, such as those live today, run by the high-value businesses on the web, offer the user multiple ways to win. If one of these is a text-friendly hierarchical site map that works like a DAISY Book [2] Table of Navigation, that is a value-added feature for the blind visitor. And many others as well. The upper reaches of this hierarchical view of the offering, subject to its [likely] stability, is well done to be reflected in a stable path tree using mnemonic path segments. Maybe we should rewrite the tip to make it clearer than not all URIs can be, or should try to be, mnemonic. But it is still true that the best Web practice with appropriate use of some mnemonic URIs is better practice than the best Web practice without any. Al [1] http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/ud4grid/ alt: http://www.google.com/search?q=grok-locked+loop [2] http://www.loc.gov/nls/z3986/ alt: http://www.google.com/search?q=DAISY+talking+book >I don't think this is established as best practice: > >[[ >Use directories instead of ?aid=342h987f2 > >Why? > >Today it is common for persons to use different computers and browsers, >which do not readily synchronize bookmarks with each other. If your page >use URIs like "http://www.site.com/fishing/" instead of >"http://www.site.com/?aid=342h987f2", it is more likely that users will >be able to remember the URI for later reference. Thus they will avoid >excessive use of search engines, and won't need to find the link on your >possibly over-crowded first page. >]] > -- http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/readable-uri > >In what way is use of search engines "excessive"? >Using search engines and navigating from one page >to another is to be encouraged, not discouraged. > > >So much for my main point; on to relatively smaller comments... > >[[ >Most (all?) web servers will serve >"http://www.site.com/fishing/index.shtml" (or whichever extension) if >you type the address "www.site.com/fishing" in the address field of the >browser. >]] > >Not all. That's a server-side convention, not an HTTP protocol >feature/constraint. > >I don't know what "This should work even if you submit variables in the >URI." means at all. > >"Upgrade your web server as needed" seems counter productive. Give >links specific documentation for the most popular 2 or 3 servers. > > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 18:45:09 UTC