Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:04:12 +1100
In article
<49ab637d$0$4211$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"asdf" <asdf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm with Nige on this one...
I never take sides...
cf. your statements above, my naughty editing bringing the contradiction
out in relief... <g>
1. It is wrong (and would be very surprising) that the 'semantic markup'
ethos implies you should *never* *ever* use a one col or one row table.
a consequence of your assertion above.
No, because from *accessibility and semantic* standpoints, a menu is not by
nature tabular data. Arranging menu items using tables implies
(semantically) that the coder is presenting data rather than UI elements.
How do you come to the idea that a menu is not tabular data?
If, on the other hand, you DID have some tabluar data to display (like maybe
database records containing a single field (your example) or single record),
then it is perfectly acceptable, indeed it would be CORRECT to use a table.
So why is a menu not suitable for a col or row? What is suitable? The
sizes of planets from Mercury to Neptune? (which I have urged, read
earlier, post in this thread to use an OL *preferably* Are you on "my
side" in this urging? or did you miss my urging for ULs and OLs as a
first choice).
Let's say the planet size figures are at least kosher on your reckoning
for a table.
So why not a menu exactly? Why not, really why? What is the argument
besides the utterance "it is not tabular data". It is the data of the
main menu items on the site. or it is the data on the local menu items
on the page.
Note that tables, semantically speaking *should* contain 'header' rows as aI would say this is untrue but I am willing to hear your argument for
minimum to explain what the data actually is, even if you style them to be
invisible.
this. No quotes from authority figures please, not interested in these
unless you tell them to talk to me directly. The context alone could be
all the information a user would need to understand what is going on
without <TH>s (assuming you are talking these latter). If you had a
paragraph beforehand to give context or a heading saying "Planet sizes",
there would be no need. Same with menu items not needing any particular
formal heading preceding. It can be obvious.
I guess what I'm talking about here is 'best practice' as opposed toBest practice is not on the same road that leads to people refusing to
'acceptable practice'.
use tables when tables are in fact kosher. Pretty well every week in
some periods, we get examples of these thoroughly frightened
individuals. Your's and Nige's mistake is subtler but no less an error
imo.
....
3. A two col table is very much a thoroughly correct *option* (not
requirement) for an ordered list, the order being in one col and the
list items in the other.
Ah no. A table by it's very nature should not rely on order of data
necessarily,
This is either too vague, irrelevant or plain wrong. The orders of many
of the lists in a table are very much *necessarily ordered*. Take a two
col table of products and prices. Once the products are set out in
whatever arbitrary fashion, the list of prices is then extremely ordered
or false info will result.
--
dorayme
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: Mike Silva
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: nice.guy.nige
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: dorayme
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: asdf
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: dorayme
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- From: asdf
- Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- Prev by Date: Re: Want to substitute the % in the url with the equivalent one.
- Next by Date: Re: Want to substitute the % in the url with the equivalent one.
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- Next by thread: Re: Is there a preferred structure for navigation links?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading