Popups, web applications, accessibility

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
[color=blue]
> I often use <acronym title="Bla bla bla">BBB</acronym> for that[/color]

Unfortunately, the HTML4's "definition "[1] of an acronym is defective,
and I find hardly any use for it in that form.

I certainly go along with the general idea of using something special
to denote abbreviations, definitions and so forth, to visually suggest
the presence of a title attribute. Something incorporating a dotted
underline indeed seems to be a commonly adopted convention.
[color=blue]
> You can also use <span
> class="definiti on" title="Bla bla bla">Bla</span> or something.[/color]

But please use the specific HTML logical markup, where one exists and
is not otherwise problematic. <dfn> seems to be tailormade for this,
or do you have a problem with it?

For abbreviations, I'd use <abbr>, and then (if I'm feeling generous
on the day) wrap that in a <span class="abbr"> for the benefit of the
benighted users of that unjustly-popular non-WWW-conforming
browser-like operating system component. Assigning both tags an
appropriate "title=" attribute.

Then the stylesheet can contain stuff like

abbr, span.abbr { ... }

so that it comes out OK.
[color=blue]
> Actually, as user, I would probably open those links you describe in a
> new Windows myself anyway. Don't underestimate people to do what makes
> sense to them, presented with a perfectly static and expectable
> document.[/color]

"amen to that"

all the best

[1] The HTML4 spec makes no attempt to define the term "acronym", but
their examples are at variance with dictionary definitions and with
serious usage. "F.B.I" (with dots!) an acronym - my foot!

[Stephen Poley]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:52:53 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I'm back to asking what's annoying about it. I certainly understand what's
>annoying about Orbitz and Classmates ads preventing you from doing your
>business on a web site. I don't understand what's annoying about a popup
>interface that assists you with the work you're trying to do. For example,
>say a web site hyperlinks technical terms within its main text to their
>definitions in a glossary that pops up. If the glossary is in a smaller,
>separate window, it is readily accessible and lets you browse the entire
>glossary. You also have the benefit of not losing your place in the material
>you were reading. Why is that annoying?[/color]

FWIW I'm with you on this one. If one has a clear reason why an average
reader is likely to find it useful to see the old and new windows
together - such as with a glossary - then I really can't see the
objection. Yes, it's true that pop-ups are frequently misused and
over-used, but that doesn't make them bad in all cases. I doubt whether
the people here who find all pop-ups irritating are representative of
the web-browsing population.

But if there is an *objective* reason why all pop-ups are bad, I would
also be interested in knowing what it is.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility


"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4 .53.03101717483 50.27834@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk. ..[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I often use <acronym title="Bla bla bla">BBB</acronym> for that[/color]
>
> Unfortunately, the HTML4's "definition "[1] of an acronym is defective,
> and I find hardly any use for it in that form.[/color]

Since it's an ordinary English word, and they discuss it alongside
"abbreviati on" (granted that they misinterpret the distinction between the
two), maybe they felt their examples established the usage well enough. It
seems clear enough to me what the intent is, and it works in the current
Netscape and IE versions. I've read that it's useful for table headings, as
well, when the text that ought to be read by the speech synthesizer is
somewhat different from what's being displayed for sighted readers.
(Example: narrow columns where extremely abbreviated headings are used; for
people using synthesizers, horizontal space isn't a concern and it's better
to have the reader recite the full title of the column.)
[color=blue]
>
> I certainly go along with the general idea of using something special
> to denote abbreviations, definitions and so forth, to visually suggest
> the presence of a title attribute. Something incorporating a dotted
> underline indeed seems to be a commonly adopted convention.
>[color=green]
> > You can also use <span
> > class="definiti on" title="Bla bla bla">Bla</span> or something.[/color]
>
> But please use the specific HTML logical markup, where one exists and
> is not otherwise problematic. <dfn> seems to be tailormade for this,
> or do you have a problem with it?[/color]

According to W3C, <dfn> indicates that its content is the "defining
instance", whatever that means. It doesn't provide a means to display the
term on the page while providing access (through a bubble or a link) to its
definition.

Well, this is funny: in spite of the W3C's failure to point out that <dfn>
works this way, it works just like <acronym>, if you give it a title, in
both Netscape 6 and IE 6, in addition to being italicized in both.
[color=blue]
>
> For abbreviations, I'd use <abbr>, and then (if I'm feeling generous
> on the day) wrap that in a <span class="abbr"> for the benefit of the
> benighted users of that unjustly-popular non-WWW-conforming
> browser-like operating system component. Assigning both tags an
> appropriate "title=" attribute.[/color]

FWIW, I don't understand why even as late as IE6 this is omitted. The
similar tags (<acronym>, <dfn>) are supported.

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility


"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in message
news:G_Vjb.300$ xr1.185@newsfep 1-gui.server.ntli .net...[color=blue]
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> [snip][color=green]
> > Actually--and years of experience with users of all kinds of
> > applications back me up on this--I know well enough that many people
> > don't have the slightest idea about some of the features available to
> > them that you and I take for granted, beyond those that are visible
> > directly on the main screen. Open a link in a new windows? Open the
> > current page in a new window? Change your font size? Even without
> > doing a survey, I'm fairly confident that a majority of browser users
> > don't know how to do those things and may not even be aware that they
> > are available. That's why I have some trouble with the idea of
> > leaving all the choices to users. How can they know what their own
> > preferences are if they don't know that the alternatives exist?[/color]
>
> Then educate them, don't patronise them.[/color]

Are there many web sites that interrupt their own presentations to give
their users an education in using their own browsers? And how do you do that
if you don't know what browsers they're using?

As for the "patronizin g" part, is it really patronizing to make the site
usable for them as they are instead of as you think they should be? This
whole discussion is about usability, but you appear to be suggesting that
one forsake usability by and convenience for the unsophisticated in favor of
catering to the pet peeves of the sophisticated. Surely you don't mean that!

[Barry Pearson]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

Harlan Messinger wrote:[color=blue]
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupp ortanalysis.co. uk> wrote in message
> news:G_Vjb.300$ xr1.185@newsfep 1-gui.server.ntli .net...[color=green]
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> [snip][color=darkred]
>> > Actually--and years of experience with users of all kinds of
>> > applications back me up on this--I know well enough that many
>> > people don't have the slightest idea about some of the features
>> > available to them that you and I take for granted, beyond those
>> > that are visible directly on the main screen. Open a link in a new
>> > windows? Open the current page in a new window? Change your font
>> > size? Even without doing a survey, I'm fairly confident that a
>> > majority of browser users don't know how to do those things and
>> > may not even be aware that they are available. That's why I have
>> > some trouble with the idea of leaving all the choices to users.
>> > How can they know what their own preferences are if they don't
>> > know that the alternatives exist?[/color]
>>
>> Then educate them, don't patronise them.[/color]
>
> Are there many web sites that interrupt their own presentations to
> give their users an education in using their own browsers? And how do
> you do that if you don't know what browsers they're using?[/color]

Strawman - who said anything about telling them about their own browsers? I
didn't.

You appear above to be proposing to do things on the user's behalf without
knowing enough about them or their browsers to justify what you are proposing.
The truth is, you simply don't know whether having pop-ups or whatever will be
good or bad for any particular user. It will CERTAINLY be bad for some, as you
have been told here.

If you do simple and predictable things, as much like other web sites do as
possible, you stand most chance that they will be able to access your web site
to the extent that they can access others.
[color=blue]
> As for the "patronizin g" part, is it really patronizing to make the
> site usable for them as they are instead of as you think they should
> be? This whole discussion is about usability, but you appear to be
> suggesting that one forsake usability by and convenience for the
> unsophisticated in favor of catering to the pet peeves of the
> sophisticated. Surely you don't mean that![/color]

As you point out above, you don't know much about the people and the UAs who
will be accessing your site. You don't know them "as they are". So with the
best will in the world, you may make things better for some while screwing up
others. Unfortunately, just about every decision you make will reject some
people! In the end, you probably have 2 options, and they may even be similar:

1. Be as much like lots of other valuable web sites as possible. Then users
can adapt to all of them + yours.

2. Be simple and predictable, so that users are able to adapt to your web site
rapidly.

My observation is that most web sites don't have pop-ups. (But I accept that
may be because they are so irritating that I tend to avoid those that do!)

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Nick Kew]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

In article <bmouns$obue2$1 @id-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Sometimes we develop web applications where popups make very good sense for
> precisely the same reasons they make sense in traditional locally-installed
> application interfaces.[/color]

Fair enough so far. I agree they're appropriate in some circumstances.
[color=blue]
> I understand some people object,[/color]

To popups in general, or yours in particular? They get a bad name on the
Web because thare are far more examples of abuse than of good use.
Of course I can't say which category yours fall into.
[color=blue]
> Anyway, popups are useful for web-interface applications for exactly the
> same reasons. But now, learning about accessibility issues, I have read that
> popups are troublesome for people using adaptive software for visual
> impairments. I would have thought that it might suffice to provide a
> positive indication to such users that a link will open a separate window,[/color]

But that's exactly what the WCAG says: don't open new windows without
warning the user in advance! If people object, either you're doing something
else wrong (maybe *how* or *when* you open popups) or someone is being
overly dogmatic.

I suggest you read the WCAG and perhaps browse or join relevant mailinglists,
rather than rely on what may be a suspect source.

--
Nick Kew

In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

Harlan Messinger wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, imagine the word processing analogy, where your document disappears
> every time you want to change your font, and is replaced by the
> font-changing interface. Then, to see the effect of your change, you have to
> click OK and wait till your document redisplays. If you don't like the
> result, you have to open the font display all over again.[/color]

Well, in the context of a web browser what prevents the user of
opening a second window with the "Change Font" interface document on
his/her demand?

--
Stanimir

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Harlan Messinger wrote:

[re: acronym][color=blue]
> Since it's an ordinary English word, and they discuss it alongside
> "abbreviati on" (granted that they misinterpret the distinction between the
> two), maybe they felt their examples established the usage well enough.[/color]

You might find the discussions on record which went on during the
drafting of HTML4. I followed them (and occasionally put my spoke
into the discussion...) at the time.

I think the outcome of the discussion (against my wishes and those of
a minority of others) could be crudely summarised as: "everyone knows
what an acronym is - the discussions have shown that individuals agree
that everyone should know what an acronym is - just that their
definitions are incompatible with each other! So, we 'solve' the
problem by tossing the mutually-incompatible examples into the
specification, and leaving the users of HTML4 to work something out
for themselves."
[color=blue]
> seems clear enough to me what the intent is,[/color]

Does it? I think I'd have to refer you back to the drafting
discussions. This has also been discussed here, several times since,
and I've no Round Tuits left for doing it again.
[color=blue]
> and it works[/color]

With the greatest of respect, you seem to be taking a particularly
narrow view of "works", even by the standards of previous discussions
on the topic.
[color=blue]
> in the current Netscape and IE versions. I've read that it's useful
> for table headings, as well, when the text that ought to be read by
> the speech synthesizer is somewhat different from what's being
> displayed for sighted readers.[/color]

I have this hunch that you're describing a productive use of the
"title=" attribute in HTML4 - by no means confined to the "acronym"
element.

[...][color=blue]
> According to W3C, <dfn> indicates that its content is the "defining
> instance", whatever that means. It doesn't provide a means to display the
> term on the page while providing access (through a bubble or a link) to its
> definition.
>
> Well, this is funny: in spite of the W3C's failure to point out that <dfn>
> works this way, it works just like <acronym>, if you give it a title, in
> both Netscape 6 and IE 6,[/color]

Why ever not? The "title=" attribute is a general HTML4 thing, it
"works" (in the sense that you mean here) on every element which the
browser recognises.

[ re: <abbr> ][color=blue]
> FWIW, I don't understand why even as late as IE6 this is omitted. The
> similar tags (<acronym>, <dfn>) are supported.[/color]

The dominant vendor doesn't need to worry about interworking
specifications, except where the specifications are imposed by
legislation. History is full of examples. Occasionally they'll deem
it in their interest to conform, in some narrow area, and make a great
song and dance about it for a while, but mostly they sweet-talk their
customers into the belief that the majority vendor is better because
it's different.

The reason that IE does not respond to <abbr title="..."> has nothing
to do with some erroneous belief that title= is specific to <acronym>,
<span>, (and <dfn> as you've now discovered). The real reason is that
IE does not choose to recognise <abbr...> at all, and in consequence
it disregards all attributes and styles applied to it, just as it
would disregard the attributes and styles applied to some non-existent
<foo> or <furble> tag.[1]

On the other hand, IE, just like WWW-conforming browsers, has support
for title= attribute on a whole range of tags which it _does_ support.
Try it and you'll see.

all the best

[1] OK, it doesn't _have_ to be that way. A browser _could_ choose to
implement the non-existent <furble> tag by assigning it no particular
properties of its own, but nevertheless honouring whatever properties
or behaviours were attached to its attributes and styles. Do any
browsers actually do that? I don't recall meeting one.

[Stan Brown]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

In article <1bf0pvcl0nvn14 b8estj90i46h9bu fs7bb@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Stephen Poley
<sbpoleySpicedH amTrap@xs4all.n l> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>But if there is an *objective* reason why all pop-ups are bad, I would
>also be interested in knowing what it is.[/color]

I think I can suggest two such reasons. The first: what does an
aural browser do with a popup? Can a visually impaired user "see"
the popup window? I rather doubt it. The second reason flows from
current practice by users.

Popups are often abusive; I think we can all agree on that.

Therefore many of the people who have the option have disabled
popups. (Unfortunately this often means disabling _all_ popups. For
instance, Mozilla changed behavior between 1.2 and 1.4 so that
"Block unrequested popups" now blocks many that I used to get by
clicking on links in 1.2.)

Therefore popups will not be seen by a significant minority of
users. From their point of view, they click on a link and nothing
happens.

Therefore, anything that depends on popups to present content is
bad, because a number of users won't see the content.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA

http://OakRoadSystems.com/

HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> Popups are often abusive; I think we can all agree on that.[/color]

I think many of _us_ could agree on that, indeed: but the truth is
that it matters rather little what _we_ think: the important thing is
what our readers think. And my understanding is that web users
dislike unsolicited pop-ups, particularly because they associate them
with intrusive advertising that only distracts them from what they
were trying to do.

(It just so happens that I feel the same way about it, but it would
make little difference in web authoring terms just _what_ I,
personally, thought about it.)

Even _solicited_ ones can be hard to use, if they aren't carefully
designed. Have you ever tried chasing down a three-level pop-up menu
using one of those nipple things on the IBM laptop? It's a pain.

cheers

[Nick Theodorakis]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:14:14 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:


[...]
[color=blue]
>[1] OK, it doesn't _have_ to be that way. A browser _could_ choose to
>implement the non-existent <furble> tag by assigning it no particular
>properties of its own, but nevertheless honouring whatever properties
>or behaviours were attached to its attributes and styles. Do any
>browsers actually do that? I don't recall meeting one.[/color]

A quick test (on Win98) indicates that Mozilla 1.4 and Opera 7.1 will
assign CSS properties to an imaginary tag <furble>, and Mozilla will
furthermore pop up a "tooltip" in response to a title attribute to the
said <furble> tag.

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_theodoraki s@hotmail.com
nicholas_theodo rakis [at] urmc [dot] rochester [dot] edu

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Nick Theodorakis wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 17:14:14 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
> <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >implement the non-existent <furble> tag by assigning it no particular
> >properties of its own, but nevertheless honouring whatever properties
> >or behaviours were attached to its attributes and styles. Do any
> >browsers actually do that? I don't recall meeting one.[/color]
>
> A quick test (on Win98) indicates that Mozilla 1.4 and Opera 7.1 will
> assign CSS properties to an imaginary tag <furble>, and Mozilla will
> furthermore pop up a "tooltip" in response to a title attribute to the
> said <furble> tag.[/color]

Thanks for the correction! I must remind myself not to make
broad-brush statements based on out-of-date tests.

cheers

[Stephen Poley]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:14:55 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown @fastmail.fm> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <1bf0pvcl0nvn14 b8estj90i46h9bu fs7bb@4ax.com> in
>comp.infosyste ms.www.authoring.html, Stephen Poley
><sbpoleySpiced HamTrap@xs4all. nl> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>>But if there is an *objective* reason why all pop-ups are bad, I would
>>also be interested in knowing what it is.[/color]
>
>I think I can suggest two such reasons. The first: what does an
>aural browser do with a popup? Can a visually impaired user "see"
>the popup window? I rather doubt it.[/color]

So do I. I don't know much about aural browsers, but I would have
expected that they would simply ignore the target attribute, so using it
should not cause the reader any inconvenience.

[color=blue]
>The second reason flows from
>current practice by users.
>
>Popups are often abusive; I think we can all agree on that.[/color]

Sure.
[color=blue]
>Therefore many of the people who have the option have disabled
>popups. (Unfortunately this often means disabling _all_ popups. For
>instance, Mozilla changed behavior between 1.2 and 1.4 so that
>"Block unrequested popups" now blocks many that I used to get by
>clicking on links in 1.2.)
>
>Therefore popups will not be seen by a significant minority of
>users. From their point of view, they click on a link and nothing
>happens.[/color]

That sounds to me suspiciously like broken browser behaviour. If the
user has disabled pop-ups, then clicking on a link which makes use of
the target attribute should simply cause that attribute to be ignored
(and probably also any 'onclick' Javascript) and the linked page to be
opened in the current window.

So then we get into the perennial debate as to how far one goes to cope
with broken browsers.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> For abbreviations, I'd use <abbr>, and then (if I'm feeling generous
> on the day) wrap that in a <span class="abbr"> for the benefit of the
> benighted users of that unjustly-popular non-WWW-conforming
> browser-like operating system component. Assigning both tags an
> appropriate "title=" attribute.
>
> Then the stylesheet can contain stuff like
>
> abbr, span.abbr { ... }
>
> so that it comes out OK.
>[/color]

I use <acronym> because the display of title-text as pop-up-text is
broken in IE for <abbr>. It is not for <acronym>. The largest
percentage of browsers used to access my websites (and those of others,
I guess) is IE.
Theoretically I agree, and prefer <abbr> because how something is
read-out (whether as one word or separate letters) is more or less
presentational, and basically I believe the W3C is confusing the two as
well.
[color=blue]
>
> [1] The HTML4 spec makes no attempt to define the term "acronym", but
> their examples are at variance with dictionary definitions and with
> serious usage. "F.B.I" (with dots!) an acronym - my foot![/color]

Exactly.

--
Google Blogoscoped

http://blog.outer-court.com

[Philipp Lenssen]

Re: Popups, web applications, accessibility

Harlan Messinger wrote:

[On opening a link in a new window based on user choice]
[color=blue]
>
> Actually--and years of experience with users of all kinds of
> applications back me up on this--I know well enough that many people
> don't have the slightest idea about some of the features available to
> them that you and I take for granted, beyond those that are visible
> directly on the main screen. Open a link in a new windows? Open the
> current page in a new window? Change your font size? Even without
> doing a survey, I'm fairly confident that a majority of browser users
> don't know how to do those things and may not even be aware that they
> are available.[/color]

I think changing the font-size and opening-new-windows are two
different things. Even otherwise not "expert" browsing people use
open-in-new-window features often. That's just from my experience
watching family and friends. So if we can't throw around statistics, we
can't agree on any "popular facts" I believe, because it doesn't add
anything valuable to the discussion.


--
Google Blogoscoped

http://blog.outer-court.com