Maybe I am missing something, I looked at your source code and didn't see any of the code you have shown in the example. Like I said, maybe I am missing something very obvious.
I am well aware I can just write my own code, but I was interested in looking at yours as well. Happy HTML5 playing! :)
the datetime microformat is semantic but hurts accessibility
But the datetime microformat is an open data XHTML microformat designed to be human readable first. You cannot really use it in an argument about accessibility.
The little meta tables are accessible, they are tables containing tabular data that have been marked up correctly...no problems.
What disabled people want is to be served a well structured and semantic document, that their user agent can interpret, without any presentational croutons.
This is an oversimplification. For one, presentational markup doesn't hurt accessibility. For instance, if I throw in an i, I'm not making my page less accessible.
But additionally, I don't think it's enough to have semantic markup to be accessible (although it doesn't hurt). Two examples: the datetime microformat is semantic but hurts accessibility, and the metadata tables on this site are semantic but I'm thinking they probably aren't great for accessibility purposes.
And you want this person to try to figure out what disabled people are going to want?
What disabled people want is to be served a well structured and semantic document, that their user agent can interpret, without any presentational croutons.
Still, the fact that website coders misuse semantic tags doesn't necessarily highlight a problem with the markup, but with the mindset of writers/programmers.
I don't disagree. But my point works the other way around: the mindset of writers/programmers causes a problem in semantic markup. And there will always be users who don't "get" semantic markup. Education will help, but there's no way to "fix" all the ignorant people out there.
And as the previous comment noted, not all users can see the page, and may need to have audio or tactile cues for certain tags. If a writer is constructing his page on the basis that his audience is using the same browser, at the same size, in the same manner that he does, then he's already off to a bad start, IMO.
And you want this person to try to figure out what disabled people are going to want?
"Think about the meaning now and worry about the way it looks later." Anyone could understand this.
Less knowledgeable users have been doing what they were told to do: No tables and using em and strong in place of i and b. But they could be taught the meaning of em and strong just as easily. Every author knows what he wants to emphasize. Maybe he doesn't know if the heading should be blue or green yet but he knows it's a heading. The vast majority of users of HTML might not know what semantic markup but they know what they want to say and it's enough. "Think about the meaning now and worry about the way it looks later." Anyone could understand this.
Of course tables have a legitimate place in the web. I don't know that I would agree that a calendar fits into that use semantically, though, as the data in the cell is not tabulated. I suppose that is debatable.
Still, the fact that website coders misuse semantic tags doesn't necessarily highlight a problem with the markup, but with the mindset of writers/programmers. I imagine that much of the misplaced em or strong tags originated from the HTML validity parser, which feels compelled to suggest replacement tags to users. The parser doesn't know what the writer meant, and it's not necessarily right to assume that someone using bold is writing in a strong manner. Perhaps the parser might teach users to markup their documents with tags of what they mean to say, not how they want it to look.
And as the previous comment noted, not all users can see the page, and may need to have audio or tactile cues for certain tags. If a writer is constructing his page on the basis that his audience is using the same browser, at the same size, in the same manner that he does, then he's already off to a bad start, IMO. After all, one Firefox user can set his ems to appear bold and underlined and his strongs to appear in all caps and colored red, while most others might leave them at their default.
Rather than opening up the can of worms that is presentational markup, I would see considerably more benefit in outright educating users in the form of hard error messages that they need to convey intent, not appearance, in their writing on the web.
This is one reason why it is important to have presentational elements alongside semantic ones.
There is never an important reason to have presentational elements.
The HTML part of a webpage should be served to a user agent completely free of any presentational markup, it is the job of that user agent to interpret the document in the first instance, not for the designer to assume.
If the user is viewing the page with a web browser that is fully enabled then it can use the CSS and DOM scripting provided by the designer, and be displayed as the designer wished, but what if the user is blind? or is dyslexic and uses his own CSS to browse the page, all of a sudden the presentational markup removes meaning from the document.
(ps. In Ff2 at 1024x768 on Win XP, the input and textarea on your comment page breaks out of it's container.)
But the datetime microformat is an open data XHTML microformat designed to be human readable first. You cannot really use it in an argument about accessibility.
The little meta tables are accessible, they are tables containing tabular data that have been marked up correctly...no problems.
This is an oversimplification. For one, presentational markup doesn't hurt accessibility. For instance, if I throw in an
i, I'm not making my page less accessible.But additionally, I don't think it's enough to have semantic markup to be accessible (although it doesn't hurt). Two examples: the datetime microformat is semantic but hurts accessibility, and the metadata tables on this site are semantic but I'm thinking they probably aren't great for accessibility purposes.
I don't disagree. But my point works the other way around: the mindset of writers/programmers causes a problem in semantic markup. And there will always be users who don't "get" semantic markup. Education will help, but there's no way to "fix" all the ignorant people out there.
And you want this person to try to figure out what disabled people are going to want?
But yet the vast majority of users don't.
Of course
tables have a legitimate place in the web. I don't know that I would agree that a calendar fits into that use semantically, though, as the data in the cell is not tabulated. I suppose that is debatable.Still, the fact that website coders misuse semantic tags doesn't necessarily highlight a problem with the markup, but with the mindset of writers/programmers. I imagine that much of the misplaced
emorstrongtags originated from the HTML validity parser, which feels compelled to suggest replacement tags to users. The parser doesn't know what the writer meant, and it's not necessarily right to assume that someone using bold is writing in a strong manner. Perhaps the parser might teach users to markup their documents with tags of what they mean to say, not how they want it to look.And as the previous comment noted, not all users can see the page, and may need to have audio or tactile cues for certain tags. If a writer is constructing his page on the basis that his audience is using the same browser, at the same size, in the same manner that he does, then he's already off to a bad start, IMO. After all, one Firefox user can set his
ems to appear bold and underlined and hisstrongs to appear in all caps and colored red, while most others might leave them at their default.Rather than opening up the can of worms that is presentational markup, I would see considerably more benefit in outright educating users in the form of hard error messages that they need to convey intent, not appearance, in their writing on the web.
There is never an important reason to have presentational elements. The HTML part of a webpage should be served to a user agent completely free of any presentational markup, it is the job of that user agent to interpret the document in the first instance, not for the designer to assume. If the user is viewing the page with a web browser that is fully enabled then it can use the CSS and DOM scripting provided by the designer, and be displayed as the designer wished, but what if the user is blind? or is dyslexic and uses his own CSS to browse the page, all of a sudden the presentational markup removes meaning from the document.
(ps. In Ff2 at 1024x768 on Win XP, the input and textarea on your comment page breaks out of it's container.)