|
|
Posted by David Dorward on 11/06/15 11:41
(Sorry if this comes through twice, my newsreader decided to crash as I
posted).
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
>> CSS support is quite often lacking on hand held devices.
>
> Ah, see. I don't aim for handhelds.
Nor do I. It is an advantage of writing structured markup - you don't need
to aim for any particular device, it "just works" wherever the reader cares
to read it (or listen to it, etc).
> I mean, I don't have any content meaningful to someone 'on the road'.
My Dutch is rather lacking, but a glance (at the first link in your sig)
suggests that (at least some of) the content is as meaningful to someone on
the road as at their desk. It might not be of /extra/ use (as might a
"where is the nearest bus station" service might be), but I don't think it
loses usefulness.
Since you run a blog, it might be worth pointing out that 6 years ago[1] I
took public transport to get to work and got in the habit of dumping a
chunk of a news website to my PDA to read on the way. These days I drive so
I can't do that any more, but were circumstances different I expect a
number of blogs would get dumped. (I could run things through festival and
listen as I drive, but that doesn't lend itself to flagging items for more
attention later on, and computer voices aren't the nicest of things to
listen to).
(I also use it to browse regular websites from time to time.)
> My pages are way too long for comfortable reading in those tiny things
> too.
Those tiny things are gaining ever larger and ever higher resolution
screens. Recent mobile phones are pretty comfortable for reading long
sections of text on, let alone PDAs. I've read entire novels[2] on the PDA
I bought three years ago!
> I don't think my site is read with a handheld ever, or close to never at
> least.
Is this the age old "Nobody reads my site with Firefox, therefore I won't
support Firefox, therefore nobody *can* read my site with Firefox, GOTO 10"
issue?
Admittedly current usage of such devices isn't very high (at least for that
purpose), but I'd expect it to grow - and it was just an example.
Here's another one. I've done some poking, and am informed that it is not
uncommon for users with sight related handicaps to replace author's style
sheets with their own. So they would get the images displayed at the top of
the document (quite possibly enlarged to fill the screen thanks to screen
magnification software).
>> Besides - bad markup is still bad markup
>
> Hang on. What makes you say that?
Section 2.4.1 of the HTML 4.01 recommendation. It discusses the separation
of structure from presentation. Your proposal is to add pure presentation
to the structure of the document (that, at best, looks odd when style
sheets are not available).
> Not necessarily, no. As I indicated in a previous post, one can use the
> preloaded images to create hover effects in menu's and such. And as I see
> that, there is no eason what so ever to use javascript for that. A bit of
> css will do that for you just fine. And as far as I'm concerned, css does
> that better, than javascript does.
So why not use CSS to precache the images rather than HTML? Setting them as
backgrounds on elements inside a 1x1 overflow hidden div would probably do
the job (hacking around the issue of browsers not fetching images
referenced by styles with selectors that don't match any elements in the
document). It's a touch ugly in the markup, but doesn't come with the
"Here's a content image" side effects.
[1] Has it really been that long?
[2] http://www.plkr.org/ and http://www.baen.com/library/ make a nice
combination.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|