| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> (except in so far as UAs don't recognize roles)
<1> webben: in a way, but while it would be difficult to get that construct by WCAG 1.0, it's a breeze to get it by WCAG 2.0
<2> Yet people haven't got any more able in between
<0> Hmm ... but accessibility guidelines are not the same as accessibility technologies. The technologies can be good even when the guidelines are rubbish (in theory).
<2> the WHAT discussion was good in that someone said "I've got some really accessible new content" and the image didn't have an f'ing alt
<0> That was rather funny.
<2> and it needed one!
<0> The MDC Accessible DHTML page doesn't help by making its first example one of reimplementing a checkbox with span.
<0> http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Accessible_DHTML
<1> Sounds like an excellent discussion, on several levels ... tho possibly not the ones they considered.
<0> It seems rather important however than Jaws and Window-Eyes are supporting these roles, given that ***istive technology often lags even further behind specs than browsers.
<2> Indeed
<1> webben: it would be, if it wasn't for the fact that neither of them will support user-extended roles ... and that other UAs still won't.
<2> But not if they need the roles but not an ALT - which is what happens here
<0> Windrose: If we forget about WCAG 2.0 which from reports sounds useless anyhow ... then the fact that neither will support user-extensions may turn out to be a blessing.
<0> It means that there would be a reliable subset.
<1> webben: yes. And an unreliable superset. From history, which do you think people will use?
<0> Windrose: I think people have tended to use unreliable stuff when they can rely on it in the primary user agent (e.g. IE autocomplete).
<0> Windrose: If Jaws and IE aren't offering it, then the unreliable stuff is unlikely to be used anyway.
<1> Indeed. Tho I must applaud the W3C for finding a way to make people happy.
<0> It's also noteworthy that the roles extensibility is also nowhere near as simple as just inventing your own role.
<0> I haven't seen many people keen to delve into RDF. http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/GUI/roleTaxonomy-20060508.html#Extending
<1> webben: it does make it a wee bit more complicated, yes.
<0> though I suppose the issue might be that UAs would create RDF which others could use
<3> okay im going to restate my question to see if this time someone will help me
<3> http://www.bpong.com/store/prod.php?prodid=2 JS/ajax updating of the image works in FF (change the color from black to white and back and forth), but not in IE.. i added a rand() at the end of the image to show that its updating the image div's inners. in IE everything else updates fine though. any ideas?
<0> How workable those extensions are depends on how completely the behaviour of widget can be defined using RDF.
<1> webben: well ... rather how to make sense of the roles except as simple string labels for attaching styles and scripting.
<4> ajnewbold: one of my couses is "Internet Applications"
<4> *courses
<5> haha
<4> ajnewbold: i swear i'm gonna lose it if i have to use frontpage
<5> "Internet Explorer"
<5> "Microsoft Outlook"
<4> ajnewbold: clearly worth the $8k/semster it probably is gonna cost
<5> I have never used frontpage
<0> It's not inconceivable that you could create a syntax that would allow proper description of widget behaviour.
<5> is it that bad?
<6> hi, is there an event that tells me if the window size has changed ??
<4> ajnewbold: its that bad
<5> hax: it is better or worse than just using Word to make your web pages? :)
<0> In any case, I suppose there's nothing prevent WHATWG specs from limiting roles to those included in the spec.
<4> ajnewbold: worse
<5> hax: oh, heh, then it must really blow
<4> ajnewbold: word atleast recognizes its not a web app
<0> s/in the spec/in the W3C spec
<1> WHATWG, aren't they the lot behind the 'ping' attribute too?
<0> Windrose: that's in their web apps spec. Which is decidely less advanced than their Web Forms 2.0 spec, which seems to be transitioning to W3C.
<2> "the lot"
<2> ITYM Hixie
<1> "Aye. 'im."
<7> can anyone point in the direction of some really nice advertising agency sites?
<0> Does the potential problem with extensibility make the role technology less or more desirable than 1) standardized delimited cl*** names (which is how roles will be implemented in html4 anyhow) or 2) XBL2
<1> webben: frankly I don't see a need for either roles or cl*** names - I would rather see HTML extended with more elements.
<1> Same problem, of course, with UA support and understanding.
<0> well, that's my option 1) ... and i guess it's what Web Forms 2.0 does to some extent.
<0> e.g input type="range" etc
<0> (which could be _displayed_ as a slider for example)
<1> "more of them".
<0> Windrose: isn't that typographic stuff coming in CSS3? (I realize that's like waiting for Godot).
<0> Windrose: if you had to add one more semantic element to the HTML4 set, what would it be?
<8> Windrose: *hugs* hello :)
<9> Greetings :)
<9> Can someone educate me on when one should use XML and when one shouldn't?
<1> ... but CSS 3 has also - last I looked - made an effort to make itself an *** - and I mean the donkey kind. Specifically the word-wrap property"
<1> Fenix|work: that's a very openended question. When you have a need to create a markup language of some sort, and doesn't need the full power of SGML.
<0> Fenix|work: in what context?
<9> Windrose, it's open ended, cus I'm just learning. :)
<9> webben, that... I'm not sure...
<0> Fenix|work: are we talking ajax here? web pages? internal data formats?
<9> but I'll come up with some examples.
<9> and yes, web pages
<9> just plain php... no ajax
<9> I understand that xml's purpose is to carry data
<9> and it complements html ... where you can load in the data into html and display it
<9> but how you use xml is solely up to the designer/developer
<1> Fenix|work: not really. XML is a meta-language with which you create other markup languages such as XHTML.
<9> ok
<0> Fenix|work: so what we're talking about here is having an xml file with data (rather than a database)
<0> and construct (x)html web pages with that data
<9> why would you use an xml file instead of a database?
<9> (for a webpage)?
<0> Fenix|work: hmm, depends partly on what's easiest
<0> Fenix|work: for instance it may prove easy to have an XML file which is "transformed"/"converted" quite directly into (X)HTML for the web
<9> I can understand speed in the sense that opening up a data connection to a database, then querying, etc... using xml would be faster for a small amount of data
<0> Fenix|work: also XML is more versatile, in that it can actually be used as a medium of data exchange
<9> like with RSS feeds
<0> Fenix|work: yeah
<0> Fenix|work: a lot of Ajax using XML too
<9> yeah, I saw
<10> speed? _very_ few sites on the internet have to worry about cpu resources
<0> Fenix|work: usually that XML is created out of a database, but sometimes it may make sense to just use XML as your backing data store
<11> Actually it's amusing how often ajax _doesn't_ use XML. Because it's overkill compared to, say, JSON.
<0> For instance, I'm currently working on an XHTML FAQ which would use a custom XML format for FAQ.
<0> That would be trivial to transform to XHTML or HTML.
<9> ok... webben in terms I fully understand... how would one use XML and MySQL for a blog?
<1> webben: you are using FaqML?
<9> right now, everything I've ever done is PHP and MySQL
<10> IMO the greatest benefit with XML (or good databases for that matter) is that you get validation for free
<0> Windrose: no... i should look into that, thanks .... my custom format is just for my own use, really
<1> Well ... one advantage of XML - and I don't see too many - is that there exist a whole lot of languages already defined.
<0> Fenix|work: if you're using MySQL to store your blog entries, then you'd be creating XML, HTML, XHTML etc from that data
<11> W_: XML gives you well-formedness for free, but not validation. That requires the additional work of something like an XML Schema.
<9> to use to make my blog available for data exchange with programs that understand xml
<10> mattmcc, I consider that part of the benefit of using XML
<9> like an RSS newsfeed
<10> and it's certainly low-cost if not free
<11> W_: Heh. Have you ever written an XSD? :)
<10> always
<10> just pure XML doesn't make much sense to me; you have to code up against a schema
<11> Nevermind that lots of XML parsers don't actually support it.
<0> Fenix|work: but you wouldn't want to store your data in both MySQL and XML
<9> no... you'd use the database to create xml
<9> to then transfer
<10> My usual use of XML goes something like: Create schema->compile to java cl***es->code rest of app
<0> W_: depends, writing my little FAQ in a custom a format even sans schema is m***ively easier than writing it straight into XHTML
<11> Fenix|work: If your content is in a DB already, why introduce the extra step of converting it to XML, only to convert to other formats?
<0> W_: because it allows me to focus on relevant markup
<1> webben: sorry, missed your earlier question - <menu>
<10> webben, well I'm a fan of enforced consistency
<0> W_: oh, i agree a schema is a good thing :)
<9> mattmcc, the only reason I can think of is to prepare it for RSS
<10> if you have a schema when you start, you can't make a mistake in your document, use the wrong tag or something
<1> ... the element W3C took /out/ of HTML because, quote "it renders just like an UL".
<0> Windrose: a la XHTML2's navigation lists? or different?
<11> Fenix|work: Generating RSS from a DB is just like generating HTML from a DB.
<10> lol Windrose
<10> is that for real?
<12> wtf was this? [23:46:36] <sc4tmancat> [/join irc.dal.net #ddh] Hey, we are currently looking for web designers to come join the most POWERFULL group! we are Highly recognized for our skillz and are THE MOST SOPHISTIKATED! - [J\ InvteR]
<12> goddamn crazy spam
<1> W_: I wish it wasn't.
<9> mattmcc, I've never done it before... perhaps a better example is to create an xml sitemap from content in the db :)
<1> W_: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#edef-MENU
<1> "Both elements have the same structure as UL, just different rendering ... "
<10> heh
<1> "We strongly recommend using UL instead of these elements." - the pain.
<10> perhaps we should stop using <p> tags as well, go back to separating paragraphs with <br>
<11> Windrose: Took out <menu>, then in XHTML 2 put in <nl>? :)
<13> nah, use <p> </p> to separate blocks of text like DW does!
<1> mattmcc: yeah.
<14> It was a long time since I built a homepage, what languages to use?
<11> Um. HTML?
<14> hehe ya, beside that ;)
<1> danor_: ... CSS?
<11> English?
<9> webben, so basically... xml is best used to store data like in a database, but without the database :)
<4> brb, going to visit grandma
<14> "languages" ya, css but is there a better lnguage than php I should choose?
<0> Fenix|work: sort of, or for converting stuff from the database for data exchange
Return to
#web
or
Go to some related
logs:
erland debian package
python like conch
no cd boot pxe
#debian
#css
#python
debian amd64 codeblocks
ubuntu terminal background color
suse100.i686 iso
OWM premature end of script headers
|
|