HTML5 <aside> description
in [General]
|
Prev: poll: howto do informative error handling without the fatalities
Next: [PHP] the limitation of upload_max_filesize, post_max_size
From: Robert Cummings on 10 Feb 2010 16:08 From the editor's draft: " The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. " Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars, advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is fundamentally different. I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where it says: BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!! An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense. I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Jochem Maas on 11 Feb 2010 00:08 Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef: > From the editor's draft: > > " > The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of > content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside > element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such > sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. > > The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or > sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other > content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. > " > > Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars, > advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often > represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often > represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is > fundamentally different. > > I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where > it says: > > BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!! > > An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the > spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the > information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense. > > I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description. as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I really think this is too vague. the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled HTML5 tags (not mention browser support). @Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding) personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that, as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream. As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES (as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general public. rgds, Jochem PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his argumentation and opinion!
From: Robert Cummings on 11 Feb 2010 01:44 *haha* I've removed w3.org from the recipients list... so onwards to the content below... Jochem Maas wrote: > Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef: >> From the editor's draft: >> >> " >> The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of >> content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside >> element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such >> sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. >> >> The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or >> sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other >> content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. >> " >> >> Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars, >> advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often >> represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often >> represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is >> fundamentally different. >> >> I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where >> it says: >> >> BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!! >> >> An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the >> spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the >> information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense. >> >> I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description. > > as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the > actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I > really think this is too vague. > > the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too > mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled > HTML5 tags (not mention browser support). > > @Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a > perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and > semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather > vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding) > > personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the > various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that, > as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream. > > As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly > attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES > (as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of > building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general > public. I can only somewhat agree with your assessment above. It is true that while many people still use broken browsers like IE6 and IE7; however, this should not completely dissuade us from improving the experience for those users that *do* choose standards compliant browsers. If we ignore those users because we don't see the point in wasting time on the IE* crowd, then we essentially weaken the argument in favour of embracing standards. While IE* Joe, doesn't give a damn about whether his browser supports <aside> or not, studious Jane really enjoys the enriched experience her browser provides because not only does it understand asides, but it provides a convenient extra facility that extracts them into a browsable list with excerpts taken from the surrounding text for context (inverting the relationship :). Then there's Jenny who's blind, she's listening to the content on the page and hears a little ding go off that indicates there's further information available that she can review-- she can choose to pull it up and listen to it, after which the reader returns to where she left off the original content. Alternatively she may choose not to interrupt the main flow of information, but again, similar to Jane's experience she can listen to each one afterwards in a summarized fashion. This is how serious organizations, and almost certainly Government, will markup their information. Regardless of whether everyone has a browser that supports the information. If the semantic markup improves usability and enriches the information, then it will be used to meet that purpose. > PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy > his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his > argumentation and opinion! Thanks... You've got me blushing :D Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Ashley Sheridan on 11 Feb 2010 05:06 On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 01:44 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > *haha* I've removed w3.org from the recipients list... so onwards to the > content below... > > > Jochem Maas wrote: > > Op 2/10/10 9:08 PM, Robert Cummings schreef: > >> From the editor's draft: > >> > >> " > >> The aside element represents a section of a page that consists of > >> content that is tangentially related to the content around the aside > >> element, and which could be considered separate from that content. Such > >> sections are often represented as sidebars in printed typography. > >> > >> The element can be used for typographical effects like pull quotes or > >> sidebars, for advertising, for groups of nav elements, and for other > >> content that is considered separate from the main content of the page. > >> " > >> > >> Dear God, please don't suggest it be used for noise like sidebars, > >> advertising, or non related groups of nav elements. Asides are NOT often > >> represented AS sidebars in printed typography, they are often > >> represented IN sidebars of printed typography. This distinction is > >> fundamentally different. > >> > >> I've never read a serious article where suddenly an aside is made where > >> it says: > >> > >> BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY OUR JUNK TODAY!! > >> > >> An aside is tangential to the content (as in the working draft of the > >> spec), this means it is related in some way, usually enriching the > >> information/experience rather than watering it down with nonsense. > >> > >> I beg you to reconsider your wording for this element's description. > > > > as an aside, I think I'll wait until there is some general consensus on the > > actual constructive usage of this sort of tag until I use it - personally I > > really think this is too vague. > > > > the concepts of what is structural, what is semantic and what is style are too > > mixed up and vague for me to worry, just yet, about the details of these new-fangled > > HTML5 tags (not mention browser support). > > > > @Rob - your browswer compability 'hack' example in another recent thread is a > > perfect example or the problems we face with trying to delineate between styling and > > semantics and as such I think I lot of what HTML5 adds is arbitrary and rather > > vague (the CANVAS and video stuff not withstanding) > > > > personally I don't give a hoot - browsers (and more importantly the users, and the > > various versions they run - and will be running for quite some time) mean that, > > as fas as I'm concerned, HTML5 and everything it may entail is still a pipe dream. > > > > As long as people run IE6 or IE7 (actually any POS browser that doesn't properly > > attempt to implement current standards) such things as semantically marked up ASIDES > > (as vague as the concept might) are rather irrelevant to the day to day business of > > building web sites/applications that accessible/relevant/usable/etc to the general > > public. > > I can only somewhat agree with your assessment above. It is true that > while many people still use broken browsers like IE6 and IE7; however, > this should not completely dissuade us from improving the experience for > those users that *do* choose standards compliant browsers. If we ignore > those users because we don't see the point in wasting time on the IE* > crowd, then we essentially weaken the argument in favour of embracing > standards. While IE* Joe, doesn't give a damn about whether his browser > supports <aside> or not, studious Jane really enjoys the enriched > experience her browser provides because not only does it understand > asides, but it provides a convenient extra facility that extracts them > into a browsable list with excerpts taken from the surrounding text for > context (inverting the relationship :). Then there's Jenny who's blind, > she's listening to the content on the page and hears a little ding go > off that indicates there's further information available that she can > review-- she can choose to pull it up and listen to it, after which the > reader returns to where she left off the original content. Alternatively > she may choose not to interrupt the main flow of information, but again, > similar to Jane's experience she can listen to each one afterwards in a > summarized fashion. > > This is how serious organizations, and almost certainly Government, will > markup their information. Regardless of whether everyone has a browser > that supports the information. If the semantic markup improves usability > and enriches the information, then it will be used to meet that purpose. > > > PS. from a semantics POV, Robert Cummings is, IMHO, spot on in his assessment - I do enjoy > > his posts, he's a sharp cookie with plenty to offer and I always enjoy reading his > > argumentation and opinion! > > Thanks... You've got me blushing :D > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > http://www.interjinn.com > Application and Templating Framework for PHP > I'd say that from what I've heard, Governments aren't that good at getting accessible sites up, so the chances of them using HTML5 semantically, well, the immediate future doesn't look too rosy! Also, I thought I'd throw in my tuppence as to the use of <aside>. I'd tend to try and relate it to a footnote in a book, or a boxout in a magazine article. It's not integral to the content it's related to or near, but acts as an aid to it should the reader wish. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
From: "Michael A. Peters" on 11 Feb 2010 08:41
If <aside> is not proper to use for this purpose, what would be? <sidebar> suggests a particular type of layout. <section> suggests content. <nav> is appropriate for some items in a side bar, but not all, and is often a child of how <aside> is being used. <div> give no semantics. I would like to see a <toc> tag for nav that serves as a table of contents of sorts (what I often have at the top of a side bar) but I suspect <nav> is considered sufficient. Maybe <sidebar> would be best, and the reference to column type layout can just be understood that isn't necessarily on the side? Reading up on it, I saw some suggest <figure> for what some of you want <aside> used for, but a <figure> is often important content and has its own meaning so that's not exactly appropriate. |