 | |
Re-critique
Websites/HTML pages critique & reviews Discuss and review existing WWW material (alt.html.critique)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Re-critique -
07-25-2009
, 07:02 PM
|
On 07/24/09 07:47 pm, Samuel van Laere wrote: Would you be so kind to re-critque it again? The website is: http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/ .... It seems a bit odd, and unnecessary, to use a list element for gallery layout. |
this?
Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly
meaningful markup?
--
dorayme
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 07/24/09 07:47 pm, Samuel van Laere wrote: Would you be so kind to re-critque it again? The website is: http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/ Most of the images extend beyond the <p> boundaries. To prevent that the width of the <p> element must be set to each image's width plus any border /margin/padding. It seems a bit odd, and unnecessary, to use a list element for gallery layout. |
other things to be on display.
Sure there's a number of other ways to create a gallery, but to me when it
comes to styling
nothing beats a list cause its so simple and easy to style.
To me it makes perfectly semantically sence.
Cheers,
Samuel
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4230 (20090710) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/ ... It seems a bit odd, and unnecessary, to use a list element for gallery layout. Odd in the sense of statistically unusual for web designers or more than this? Odd in that it is a peculiar way to markup an image+caption. |
Quote:
|
Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly meaningful markup? Unnecessary as in unneeded, superfluous, extraneous, gratuitous. What |
argued that it is a list of image+caption's, but then a paragraph could be
a list of words.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 07/25/09 04:02 pm, dorayme wrote: http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/ ... It seems a bit odd, and unnecessary, to use a list element for gallery layout. Odd in the sense of statistically unusual for web designers or more than this? Odd in that it is a peculiar way to markup an image+caption. |
Quote:
|
Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly meaningful markup? Unnecessary as in unneeded, superfluous, extraneous, gratuitous. What does using a list bring to the display of an image+caption? It could be argued that it is a list of image+caption's, but then a paragraph could be a list of words. |
milk in bottles. These bottles are unneeded, superfl...?" without saying
what he should be bringing the milk in...
If the OP had used the semantically nothing <div> as containers for the
pics and captions, would this be better?
--
dorayme
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <Z6GdnccLOeHdWvHXnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN (AT) sohnen-moe (DOT) com> wrote: On 07/25/09 04:02 pm, dorayme wrote: http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/ ... It seems a bit odd, and unnecessary, to use a list element for gallery layout. Odd in the sense of statistically unusual for web designers or more than this? Odd in that it is a peculiar way to markup an image+caption. Peculiar does not quite float my boat as an explanation of odd! <g Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly meaningful markup? Unnecessary as in unneeded, superfluous, extraneous, gratuitous. What does using a list bring to the display of an image+caption? It could be argued that it is a list of image+caption's, but then a paragraph could be a list of words. Sounds to me like saying to the milkman, "Hey, why did you deliver the milk in bottles. These bottles are unneeded, superfl...?" without saying what he should be bringing the milk in... If the OP had used the semantically nothing <div> as containers for the pics and captions, would this be better? |
screenreader users.
The main goal was a accessible website and for that the markup works just
fine.
Don't fix it if is aint broken right?
cheers,
Samuel
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4230 (20090710) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
I haven't had any complaints about the markup from users including screenreader users. The main goal was a accessible website and for that the markup works just fine. Don't fix it if is aint broken right? |
exceptional about a list of thumbnails or a list of thumbnail/caption
pairs. In fact, it actually sounds more correct than anything I can
think of. I am not sure what Jim is really arguing. But perhaps he will
explain.
--
dorayme
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly meaningful markup? Unnecessary as in unneeded, superfluous, extraneous, gratuitous. What does using a list bring to the display of an image+caption? It could be argued that it is a list of image+caption's, but then a paragraph could be a list of words. Sounds to me like saying to the milkman, "Hey, why did you deliver the milk in bottles. These bottles are unneeded, superfl...?" without saying what he should be bringing the milk in... To continue the metaphor, it is asking why the milkman delivered the |
Quote:
|
If the OP had used the semantically nothing <div> as containers for the pics and captions, would this be better? IMO, yes. |
not? The stylesheet has to defeat most of the default characteristics of a
list in addition to the desired presentation.
Below, the <div> styles <img> with a float:left. The "caption" style
sets the background color, border, and text styles.
(There may be a way to have the <div> size itself to the image content
and cause the caption to wrap at the image's width; I have not found it.)
<div class="img-caption-left" style="width: 500px;">
<p><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt=""></p>
<p class="caption">Meaningful info</p>
</div>
vs.
<ul id="fotoalbum">
<li><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt="">
<span>Meaningful info</span>
</li>
</ul>
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 07/26/09 04:13 pm, dorayme wrote: Unnecessary in the sense of there is shorter markup, more directly meaningful markup? Unnecessary as in unneeded, superfluous, extraneous, gratuitous. What does using a list bring to the display of an image+caption? It could be argued that it is a list of image+caption's, but then a paragraph could be a list of words. Sounds to me like saying to the milkman, "Hey, why did you deliver the milk in bottles. These bottles are unneeded, superfl...?" without saying what he should be bringing the milk in... To continue the metaphor, it is asking why the milkman delivered the bottles of milk each with their own nose cozy. |
HTML markup. See below.
Quote:
|
If the OP had used the semantically nothing <div> as containers for the pics and captions, would this be better? IMO, yes. What semantic value does <ul> bring to an image+caption that <div> does not? The stylesheet has to defeat most of the default characteristics of a list in addition to the desired presentation. |
the one I am looking at right now. Apologies in advance if it has been
change since you last saw it.
<http://www.fietsennaarlourdes.be/fotoalbum>
The OP has one list (one UL) and many list items (LIs). Now since a DIV
has no meaning at all, it is no contest which will win out on the race
to have some meaning when pitted against a LI, which does have a
meaning. It is an item in the list. Even if it is marginal.
Who knows, maybe for users who are interested in the number of pictures
listed rather than looking at them, the pics being in lists carries more
appropriate information. They are interested in them as items in a
collection. A list really. At the very least, it is not inappropriate.
Quote:
|
Below, the <div> styles <img> with a float:left. The "caption" style sets the background color, border, and text styles. (There may be a way to have the <div> size itself to the image content and cause the caption to wrap at the image's width; I have not found it.) div class="img-caption-left" style="width: 500px;" p><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt=""></p p class="caption">Meaningful info</p /div vs. ul id="fotoalbum" li><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt="" span>Meaningful info</span /li /ul |
competing with LIs, not ULs and LIs. I agree with your sentiments if
your representation were the case. The OP, to repeat, has the whole
gallery - <ul id="fotoalbum"> - as a list
Having said this, I have tended to use DIVs and floats. But I did
experiment with lists too once, I forget why I preferred DIVs in the
actual situations I was in but I see no general argument of principle
against OPs practice.
--
dorayme
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
What semantic value does <ul> bring to an image+caption that <div> does not? The stylesheet has to defeat most of the default characteristics of a list in addition to the desired presentation. Your argument seems based on a misreading of the actual markup, at least the one I am looking at right now. Apologies in advance if it has been change since you last saw it. No, I do not believe I did. I showed two markup versions that presented |
Quote:
|
Who knows, maybe for users who are interested in the number of pictures listed rather than looking at them, the pics being in lists carries more appropriate information. They are interested in them as items in a collection. A list really. At the very least, it is not inappropriate. I simply do not see a set, or collection, of pictures as a list. |
Quote:
|
Below, the <div> styles <img> with a float:left. The "caption" style sets the background color, border, and text styles. div class="img-caption-left" style="width: 500px;" p><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt=""></p p class="caption">Meaningful info</p /div vs. ul id="fotoalbum" li><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt="" span>Meaningful info</span /li /ul This is not the situation I see. Not at all. Your DIVS would be competing with LIs, not ULs and LIs. I agree with your sentiments if your representation were the case. The OP, to repeat, has the whole gallery - <ul id="fotoalbum"> - as a list The OP has used <ul> where I used a <div>, and a <li> and a <span> where |
Since most of the list-ness aspects of a list have been removed by style
rules, what is the point of using a list?
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
#20
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
On 07/27/09 03:20 am, dorayme wrote: What semantic value does <ul> bring to an image+caption that <div> does not? The stylesheet has to defeat most of the default characteristics of a list in addition to the desired presentation. Your argument seems based on a misreading of the actual markup, at least the one I am looking at right now. Apologies in advance if it has been change since you last saw it. No, I do not believe I did. I showed two markup versions that presented a single image, both with a lot of the cruft removed to highlight the markup. |
Even a web page writer with nerves of steel would quiver at the thought
of making a single image or image/caption pair a single list. A gallery,
on the other hand is a whole mob of thumbnails, they might be ordered
but generally are unordered (in the normal use of these words). I can't
help feeling there is a miscommunication here? I gave you a URL of the
OP in my last post, you snip it here, are you missing the point it was
meant to illustrate?
....
Quote:
|
Have you looked at the page with the styles disabled? |
Quote:
|
Below, the <div> styles <img> with a float:left. The "caption" style sets the background color, border, and text styles. div class="img-caption-left" style="width: 500px;" p><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt=""></p p class="caption">Meaningful info</p /div vs. ul id="fotoalbum" li><img src="..." height="221" width="500" alt="" span>Meaningful info</span /li /ul This is not the situation I see. Not at all. Your DIVS would be competing with LIs, not ULs and LIs. I agree with your sentiments if your representation were the case. The OP, to repeat, has the whole gallery - <ul id="fotoalbum"> - as a list The OP has used <ul> where I used a <div>, and a <li> and a <span> where I used a <p>. |
provided (you snip it as irrelevant here in your reply I notice) and do
the whole gallery part with divs. Where the OP would have one UL and
many LIs, you would have many DIVs. This is not the situation you are
representing it to be.
Quote:
|
Since most of the list-ness aspects of a list have been removed by style rules, what is the point of using a list? |
why it is quite appropriate, someone might as well ask: What is the
point of decking out tens if not hundreds of thumbnails in DIVS that
have no semantic content when you can do it with LIs that have
appropriate if only marginal semantic content?
--
dorayme
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.