[marcamos]

Quote

Here is a quick demonstration of an average table written with accessibility in mind. While tables can be much more complex than this, I feel that this example represents a lower level of complexity most commonly used today.

Read the rest: http://www.marcamos.com/accessible-table-m...p-demonstration

[The Lion]

I checked out your sample. It's awsome. I have some questions.

The "summary" attribute: Does it work like an 'alt' tag for an image and get picked up by metacrawlers and evaluated for optimization purposes? Also, I tend to work in HTML 4.01 Transitional. Do you know if the "summary" attribute works there?

It's a nice model of Strict 1.

rgds,
The Lion.

This post has been edited by The Lion: 11 January 2008 - 12:31 PM

[marcamos]

Thank you, sir.

Straight from the W3C about the summary attribute (http://www.w3.org/TR...ml#adef-summary): "This attribute provides a summary of the table's purpose and structure for user agents rendering to non-visual media such as speech and Braille."

The attribute itself should work across all known DOCTYPES, so I'd assume it works in 4.01 Transitional.

[The Lion]

Yeah, I saw that. I guess I didn't catch the cross DTD use, but I am still curious if you know whether or not the content in the 'summary' attribute is indexed. And if so, is there an appreciated character limit, like their supposedly is with 'alt' text, titles and descriptions?

Also, would you mind taking a look at my home page. I'm self-taught, so my indentation style and use of table tags my be alien, but I'd enjoy your criticism...

-link...

It's valid. I'm just curious what you might suggest.

The Lion.

This post has been edited by The Lion: 11 January 2008 - 01:18 PM

[marcamos]

I have to admit that I don't know if it's indexed in the same way standard text is. I've never concerned myself very much with satisfying search engines, so I don't worry about that stuff. I'm a big believer that the best search engine optimization you can do is simply having awesome content created often. Additionally, making your content easy to absorb by every possible type of person and device helps immensely too.

Great content made available to the widest range of people and devices will quickly catch the eye of search engines... but who cares?

Your site is attractive when rendered, but I'll admit there is a lot I'd change in the code if it were mine. Your choice of DOCTYPE allows for a lot of deprecated elements and attributes to be used, but if you are coding it now, and not in 2005, I'd certainly take the time to put in more proper elements and attributes. For a sampling, I would duplicate your site, in its entirety, and toss a Strict DOCTYPE on it (whether HTML or XHTML, it doesn't matter), then fix all of the errors that are reported in the validator. Then you'll be using proper markup that meets todays standards.

I tip my hat to you, sir, for even asking these questions. An inquisitive markup writer usually becomes an amazing markup writer.

[The Lion]

I appreciate the input. I just recently read about the deprecation issues inherent in coding Transitional and Quirk work. It'd turned my head. Looks like I've got a whole new world here. I validated that page yesterday, and I see there's a whole ball of coding goodness out there to be bitten. Do you recommend Strict 1 over the others? Probably, eh? Aside from longevity with respect to 'accessibilty' and 'browser compatibilty' (if these 'things' are not the same 'thing'), why else would you consider it a 'better' way to go, and do you have any resources other than W3C that mgiht help me produce a better, conventional page of code. I'm all about convention if convention reeks employment.

I ask this second part mostly because I'm wondering if CSS has any translations as it is used with each of the different encodings, or is CSS all the same whatever DTD you adhere to? It definitely looks as though I'm going to have to steep myself in CSS if I'm to move into the world of the Strict, but that's exactly what I've been reading is the furture of HTML improvement anyway, which is cool. So it begs a curiosity about cross-DTD CSS application.

Also (and I know I'm carrying on here), I'm big into the 'composite site' where flash and code are combined to bring about the added value of optimization, as well aesthetics; I'm pretty confident I can get away with everything I need to do no matter what type of encoding I use, in this respect; but which of the two strict offers the most latitude without sacrifice, especially where it concerns employing JavaScript and PHP, or other language, includes?

Thanks for everything, man. Really. You're opening my eyes.
The Lion.

[marcamos]

The Lion, on Jan 11 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

I appreciate the input. I just recently read about the deprecation issues inherent in coding Transitional and Quirk work. It'd turned my head. Looks like I've got a whole new world here. I validated that page yesterday, and I see there's a whole ball of coding goodness out there to be bitten. Do you recommend Strict 1 over the others? Probably, eh? Aside from longevity with respect to 'accessibilty' and 'browser compatibilty' (if these 'things' are not the same 'thing'), why else would you consider it a 'better' way to go, and do you have any resources other than W3C that mgiht help me produce a better, conventional page of code. I'm all about convention if convention reeks employment.

Are you asking if I prefer XHTML 1.0 Strict vs. HTML 4.01 Strict? Or XHTML 1.0 Strict vs. XHTML 1.1?

Accessibility and browser compatibility aren't the same thing. The former is the practice of writing markup that is easily absorbed by the widest range of people and devices (disabled people/mobile phones, etc.). The latter is simply the ability for a web document to look nearly identical across a multitude of web browsers; something many argue isn't important (They embrace the differences in each browsers rendering engine, and I'll admit that I'm in their camp).

Aside from the above mentioned reasons regarding why it's better to validate against a higher-level DOCTYPE (accessibility and cross-browser compatibility), there's also easier code maintenance in the future, the 'readyness' you achieve for something called The Semantic Web (Google that), the ability for your site to more easily transform itself for the mobile device user, etc.

As for resources, I feel like I have a ton, but I'm on one of most lazy moods at the moment.

The Lion, on Jan 11 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

I ask this second part mostly because I'm wondering if CSS has any translations as it is used with each of the different encodings, or is CSS all the same whatever DTD you adhere to? It definitely looks as though I'm going to have to steep myself in CSS if I'm to move into the world of the Strict, but that's exactly what I've been reading is the furture of HTML improvement anyway, which is cool. So it begs a curiosity about cross-DTD CSS application.

Luckily, CSS is CSS, regardless of the DOCTYPE you choose to use. There are, however, different versions of CSS that have different levels of support from the many browsers out there, but they definitely don't change based on your DOCTYPE.

The Lion, on Jan 11 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Also (and I know I'm carrying on here), I'm big into the 'composite site' where flash and code are combined to bring about the added value of optimization, as well aesthetics; I'm pretty confident I can get away with everything I need to do no matter what type of encoding I use, in this respect; but which of the two strict offers the most latitude without sacrifice, especially where it concerns employing JavaScript and PHP, or other language, includes?

My answer is the same question from above - are you referring to XHTML Strict 1.0 vs. HTML Strict, or XHTML 1.0 Strict vs. XHTML 1.1?

The Lion, on Jan 11 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

Thanks for everything, man. Really. You're opening my eyes.

That, sir, is why I do it. The more high-quality web developers out there, the better the web will become.

[The Lion]

I guess the comparisons don't matter. Which do you prefer? And why? I need to know.

You see, I'm thinking about heading back to school (I'm a philosophy grad from UCONN). I graduated a year and a half ago and got into web design by accident. But the strides I've taken since then, you wouldn't believe. It was just so, so intersting to me that I kind of got addicted to it. And now, I think I'd really like to just follow through with another degree in Computer Science. Ultimately, along with the web design thing I've been able to scratch together, it's possible I could get a steady somewhere (maybe a college gig), and continue my business on the side insteaded of as my 'main.' So what I'm saying is that my candle's lit, bro.'

Which do you prefer? And why?
TL.

Also, do you do any web programming? And do you have a website for you services? I'd like to check it out.

[The Lion]

Following up: I just found everything I needed to know. The reason why I'd ask such an inane question like 'which do you prefer' is only because I had no clear distinction that there was a ruling standard. Anyway, I've so far learned quite a bit via W3CSchools.com. It's really a wonderful resource they have there, and it's really helping me out.

Just figured I'd pass it along, in case anyone else is looking for some good materials on XHTML Strict.

rgds,
The Lion.

This post has been edited by The Lion: 11 January 2008 - 08:37 PM

[marcamos]

The Lion, on Jan 11 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

I guess the comparisons don't matter. Which do you prefer? And why? I need to know.

You see, I'm thinking about heading back to school (I'm a philosophy grad from UCONN). I graduated a year and a half ago and got into web design by accident. But the strides I've taken since then, you wouldn't believe. It was just so, so intersting to me that I kind of got addicted to it. And now, I think I'd really like to just follow through with another degree in Computer Science. Ultimately, along with the web design thing I've been able to scratch together, it's possible I could get a steady somewhere (maybe a college gig), and continue my business on the side insteaded of as my 'main.' So what I'm saying is that my candle's lit, bro.'

Which do you prefer? And why?
TL.

Also, do you do any web programming? And do you have a website for you services? I'd like to check it out.

I've always used XHTML 1.0 Strict because I personally feel that writing XHTML, instead of HTML, is simply one step closer to the way things might be in the future, what with XML being the way it is and all that - I wish I could give you a more concrete answer, but I'm not that learned on the subject myself. I'm more in love with the semantics of markup than the particulars of DOCTYPES; I feel I've only learned what I need to know to get by, and that's it.

I'm mostly a designer and markup writer [(X)HTML/CSS], I dabble in JavaScript, and anytime I need PHP/.Net work done, I outsource it to a few people I know, or I use an existing easy-to-use framework.

I do have a couple websites - my personal freelancing gig is here: http://www.bostonwebstudio.com/ and my blog is below in my signature.

[haku]

I just had another look through your table code there Herk, and I have a couple quetsions:

1) I looked up 'scope' as I had never heard of it, and I found out that at the present, its not supported by most browsers. Do you use it so that it will kick in in the future as more browsers grow to recognize it?
2) You used scope in the caption for rows (person, place and time) in the first cell. If I don't have that first column (my first column is already data in the table, not a caption), should I still use 'scope' in the first column?

[The Lion]

Well, I'm back. I've been working with the XHTML 1.0 Strict, and I'm digging it. The only problems I have are that there's no <a href> 'target' attribute (which I loved) and that there's no <img> 'border' attribute. I've found a way around the 'border' issue by 'id-ing' it and setting the border in CSS (which is ugly), but I haven't found anything for the 'target' problem.

I really like being able to have some links open in a new window, while others just navigate without. Is there anyway to implement this in 'Strict'? Or is it only a 'Transitional' thing?

[Ben Abrams]

In all fairness, i agree with the removal of target from script. Markup should be markup. Interaction should be something else, javascript for example. Never realized border="" was removed though! =D

[haku]

I agree with removing target - I hate it when sites open up windows on me. I like to browse linearly, and if I want to start a new path I will.

As for the border being done with css - thats the preferred method these days. Markup should be separate from content. Border is markup, so its separate.

[The Lion]

The border problem is obvious with a hyperlinked image. "<a href="http://Loveit.com/"><img src="http://Loveit.com/Loveitmore.jpg"></a>" will show a purple 1px border around the linked image. You must ad 'id="whatever" to the <img> tag and set the corresponding markup declaration for "#whatever {border:0px;}". Or at least that's what I'm doing. I understand you can create new tags (which would be kind of neat), but I haven't read the 'how-to' yet, if it's even worth it.

I still think setting the border in markup is ugly and tedious, but I'm dealing with it. Small price to pay, I suppose.

As for the targeting, however, it looks like I'm going to have to JavaScript it. Targeting, though abused to death throughout the porn and penis pills industry, is a nice way to improve your site's page stays, especially where visitors are clicking outbound links. Whenever a visitor clicks an internal link on my site, I let it go. But outbounds are candy in this respect. This is (supposedly) why some sites do nothing but target links for new windows, and also the reason why Google took the 'new window' option out of Adsense. It encourages higher page rank.

The jury is still out, however.

New Question Here

I noticed that their are two feeds along with the 'demo'. I know how to put them together, but what is the added advantage of having the feeds? I realize it's another way to access the page, but it's not like the page is going to be updated everyday, as is the case with most 'good' feeds. Does it really help to have them?

One More Note

I did a little research into my earlier inquiry regarding the SEO value of the table 'summary'. A specific search on "table summary" + "pagerank" doesn't pull up much, but I did find a few encouraging posts saying this and that SEO pro wanted keywords in summariers. One post went as far as to say that the content therein is what makes the "Google world go round."

This post has been edited by The Lion: 12 January 2008 - 09:28 AM

[marcamos]

haku, on Jan 11 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

1) I looked up 'scope' as I had never heard of it, and I found out that at the present, its not supported by most browsers. Do you use it so that it will kick in in the future as more browsers grow to recognize it?
2) You used scope in the caption for rows (person, place and time) in the first cell. If I don't have that first column (my first column is already data in the table, not a caption), should I still use 'scope' in the first column?

1) I use it because screen readers rely on it extensively - It's when somebody hears your markup that scope really shines. Learn more here: http://www.w3.org/TR...-TECHS/H63.html
2) Nope, you should only define the scope of a <th> cell (or a caption as you've referred to it). You're basically saying, "This cell is the title/caption for the following cells in this row/column." And that's defined by setting the scope to either 'row' or 'column'. In your case, your titles/captions in the <th> are only across the top, and they refer to the cells underneath them in each column, therefore, you'd put scope="col" on those titles/captions.

The Lion, on Jan 12 2008, 06:02 AM, said:

Well, I'm back. I've been working with the XHTML 1.0 Strict, and I'm digging it. The only problems I have are that there's no <a href> 'target' attribute (which I loved) and that there's no <img> 'border' attribute. I've found a way around the 'border' issue by 'id-ing' it and setting the border in CSS (which is ugly), but I haven't found anything for the 'target' problem.

I really like being able to have some links open in a new window, while others just navigate without. Is there anyway to implement this in 'Strict'? Or is it only a 'Transitional' thing?

You may have already figured this out, but markup should *never* tell a browser what to do. That's JavaScript's job. I would advice you never make a new browser window open, whether using the target attribute or JavaScript. People aren't dumb, if they click away from your site, it's because they wanted to. If they made a mistake, they know where their Back button is.

The Lion, on Jan 12 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

The border problem is obvious with a hyperlinked image. "<a href="http://Loveit.com/"><img src="http://Loveit.com/Loveitmore.jpg"></a>" will show a purple 1px border around the linked image. You must ad 'id="whatever" to the <img> tag and set the corresponding markup declaration for "#whatever {border:0px;}". Or at least that's what I'm doing. I understand you can create new tags (which would be kind of neat), but I haven't read the 'how-to' yet, if it's even worth it.

The easiest way, really, is to have one line in your CSS that simply says img {border:none;} That takes care of all images without the need to ID them all. This also assumes you want every image to be border free (most everyone does).

The Lion, on Jan 12 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

New Question Here

I noticed that their are two feeds along with the 'demo'. I know how to put them together, but what is the added advantage of having the feeds? I realize it's another way to access the page, but it's not like the page is going to be updated everyday, as is the case with most 'good' feeds. Does it really help to have them?

The feeds are really for the entire site in general, not so much for each individual article. There are two of them because some people use ATOM, some people use RSS. For instance, I have my Google Reader filled with RSS subscriptions to other designers/developers out there. When ever they update their site with a new article, my Google Reader knows. I just go to one place to read everyone's new articles, instead of surfing around the internet touching each of their websites.

The Lion, on Jan 12 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

One More Note

I did a little research into my earlier inquiry regarding the SEO value of the table 'summary'. A specific search on "table summary" + "pagerank" doesn't pull up much, but I did find a few encouraging posts saying this and that SEO pro wanted keywords in summariers. One post went as far as to say that the content therein is what makes the "Google world go round."

I'm the oddball that doesn't believe very much in SEO - I know it exists and works, but I simply don't care for it. I'm a big believer that if you have awesome, helpful content that's updated regularly, visitors and search engines will take note.

[The Lion]

Quote

I'm the oddball that doesn't believe very much in SEO - I know it exists and works, but I simply don't care for it. I'm a big believer that if you have awesome, helpful content that's updated regularly, visitors and search engines will take note.

I'm in that camp with you. When I say SEO, don't let that classic picture of the over-optimized web page come to mind. I use SEO only to enhance the subject of my content. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that this is where SEO's real value lies, in helping people, who otherwise aren't very good at writing content, stay on point. Remember what they taught us in school: Whether your writing or delivering a speech: 'Say what you're going to say; repeat what you've said; and say it one last time on the way out.' Part of good writing is keeping the reader focused on your point. And in a lot of ways, metacrawlers are just weird people.

There are other advantages of SEO applications that are hard to pass up, but I digress. Ultimately however, I go through great pains to apply SEO so that it's not too directly obvious to the reader. A case in point: You would never write a tutorial on developing the perfect markup without the words 'perfect' and 'markup' encoded at least once somewhere in the document. If you did, then what you're really doing is relying on backlinks for PR, which from what I've read is only about 30 to 40 percent of, say, Google's PR algorithm. The key (as most understand) is when and where (i.e. title, description, 'Hn' bracketed text, first paragraph, last paragraph, etc) and how often. When optimizing, my goal is the same as when adhering to DTD standards. As far as I'm concern, it's just an added dimension of to the task of writing a great web page, making it all the more gratifying when finished.

Quote

img {border:none;}

Thanks for that one. It's exactly what I needed. With everything that I've learned in the last two day about markup and accessibility, I will never code the same way again...

You rock!

This post has been edited by The Lion: 12 January 2008 - 08:46 PM

[sypher]

I shall not rant about SEO ill leave that for another thread. But if you need help just post in the SEO forum seciton.

[The Lion]

Just wanted to pop in a quick follow-up: But I'm lovin' the whole XHTML Strict 1.0 adherence. I can't believe how much better my work is turning out. And now, everytime a see a website that won't validate (and I'm always checking -lol), I think to myself, 'loser'. I really have to say, too, that it's all because of the example markup shown at the head of this thread.

Of course, I did a ton of research to make this happen for me, but this is where it all began for me. I'm currently writing everything in XHTML Strict 1.0, and I don't think I'll ever look back.

Thanks, guys.

[marcamos]

I get a lot of satisfaction from hearing that, really. Any time I can assist in making a markup writer do the best they can, it has a ripple effect: every site they make will be better, that many Internet surfers will be given a site that's a bit nicer, all other developers who have to maintain that code will smile, and if I'm lucky, you'll someday start teaching other up-and-coming developers the right way.

This coming Tuesday is my meeting with the local state college - if it goes well, I'll be teaching a class of people how to design for, and write, semantic markup in the coming summer. Teaching this stuff is all I can think about lately... I wish my day job inspired me this much.