I am finding that it is female developers who are on the conference circuit explaining how we have been doing it wrong and how we can do it right. I did the view source and I won't be adding him to my list of 'HTML5 gurus' just yet, even though times change and his work may be better now.
Same as my previous comment, no 'main' or 'nav' or all that stuff. There are these microformat things which are okay if you want to get your product info or book into Google in an sku/price/ISBN type of schema. But we conflate that with weird 'aria' accessibility things. Properly structured HTML just does that out the box.
So why use 'main'? Well, if you do reader mode in Firefox or Safari then it cuts the cruft out and just shows you the stuff you want to read. Or that you want others to read. It is not rocket science and you don't need any Wordpress style 'skip to main content' link hidden at the top or 'role=main', just the 'main' element will do.
But who knows that?
Everyone in the game should.
I checked the Apple site for HTML recently and they sell billions from that site. But none of the links in the footer are in a 'nav' element. I know people don't care and that I am the only person in the world that has noticed their 'poor HTML' but you would think they would be able to get that bit of structure right. Their site is pretty awesome, they have 'main' done but didn't do very well with the navigation links. I am not being a pedant for thinking that is odd but for people who only care about the latest frameworks and 'technologies' content is just data not something that needs to be structured. I don't care about 'technologies', to me content has to be structured right if it is to be taken seriously.
What I also find odd is that structure and HTML5 elements are easy. There are vastly less elements than there are random Bootstrap classes but nobody cares to learn the elements.
from Hacker News - New Comments: "WordPress" http://bit.ly/2KrktOy
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment