- From: Gavin Kistner <gavin@refinery.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 08:44:26 -0600
- To: "Doug Schepers" <doug@schepers.cc>
- Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
On Jul 8, 2004, at 3:49 AM, Doug Schepers wrote: > A grid can allow the author to very easily create a UI that makes best > use > of the space it has available, and keeps the controls in a consistent > order > with respect to one another. I think at the heart of this debate is the same dichotomy that has been causing other battles in SVG - the split personality of SVG-as-graphics-markup and SVG-as-pixel-level-control-UI tool (and the third part of the 'di'chotomy, SVG-as-UI-tool-but-with-uncontrolled-system-widgets camp.) I now understand the desire to use a grid to layout labels and content, to control a UI. What I'm not yet sure of is whether this is appropriate for SVG. I haven't been following the 1.2 spec recently; has it decided that SVG should attempt to be all things to all people? (Or, to be fair and less melodramatic, has it been decided that 1.2 will attempt to satisfy both camps, allowing SVG to be used for pure graphics representation as well as a good UI/interaction interface?) > A grid can be very good for accessibility... each cell can have its own > title and desc, letting screen readers know what the content of the > cell is, > and when used for tabular data, such as a calendar or keypad or > spreadsheet, > can let a sightless person navigate with relative ease. While I'm normally a huge accessibility fan (and have occasionally been known to argue with others that one of the merits of SVG is its plaintext, search-engine-crawlable nature) the above seems like an argument ill-suited for the inclusion of grids in SVG. SVG isn't about accessibility, is it? It hasn't been in the past; is there a push to make it so in 1.2? Most SVG markup is meaningless to a sightless person, so what does it matter if a new element included happens to be accessible? > * It could have manually resizable columns/rows; these are going to > resize > anyway, when their values are relative and the viewport resizes, so > why not > let the author specify that they can be resized by the user? Sweet for UI. Often desired in HTML. Appropriate for SVG? (If we go this route, shouldn't we have 'draggable' and 'resizable' attributes for all elements, so the UI can let the user interact with it easily. Maybe even showBoundingBox and showResizeHandles :p) I think I'm seeing a pattern in my point-by-point arguments that helps explain to me what my position is: While I am an SVG-for-UI guy, I think I'm bothered by the inclusion of any "I'll figure out where to place this stuff for you" features. While at some point in the future I'll probably be screaming for a table, right now I think I'm falling into the camp of "1.2 is long overdue as it is; let's get it polished and get some UAs deployed, ASAP. No spec will ever be perfect; some feature will always be missing. We've got so much new and needed coming in 1.2 (from what I saw a while ago)...let's delay the decision on tables until the next round." Such are my thoughts :| -- (-, /\ \/ / /\/
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 10:45:10 UTC