11 Hard Truths About HTML5
Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Aug 2011 16:46 UTC
Web 2.0 InfoWorld's Peter Wayner discusses the 11 hard truths Web developers must accept in making the most of HTML5 -- especially those who are looking to leverage HTML5 in hopes of unseating native apps. 'The truth is, despite its powerful capabilities, HTML5 isn't the solution for every problem. Its additional features are compelling and will help make Web apps formidable competitors for native apps, but security issues, limitations of local data storage, synchonization challenges, and politics should have us all scaling back our expectations for the spec.'
E-mail Print r 1   54 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jca
Thread beginning with comment 485486
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: HTML 5 == Pointless Bloat
by Brendan on Wed 17th Aug 2011 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML 5 == Pointless Bloat"
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

"Of course for blind people, you really don't want HTML at all - you want something designed for complete control over audio (both sound and speech synthesis), including timing, volume, position, etc; and you want web developers to design sites specifically for audio (including site navigation, etc) instead of trying to make something intended for visual content delivery (and primarily used for visual content delivery) work in a "half-assed, almost better than nothing" way.


Somebody hasn't heard of Aural Stylesheets. "

You're right - I hadn't heard of Aural Stylesheets (and I wouldn't be surprised if most people haven't).

Do they magically restructure an entire web site? For example, with an Aural Stylesheet would the OSNews main page automatically be split up into many smaller (easier to navigate) pages with no more than about 8 articles/news items per page; with the headlines as a single list at the beginning (and all the extra clutter like the search, login, and the "legalese" at the bottom shifted to a separate page)? Or was I right from the start - it's a barely adequate compromise that fails to come close to being usable on it's own (unless web developers deliberately design a radically different "intended for audio" version of their site, that shares nothing in common with the "intended for video" version other than the database backend)?

Forgive me for suspecting the latter..

- Brendan

Edited 2011-08-17 10:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It seems that you understand the what engineering is ...

Magically expecting a specification to solve a problem instantly is ridiculous.

Lately I been using 51Degrees Mobi to deliver content for Mobile phones based on what the phone can do.

This toolkit doesn't magically solve the problem for me but it gives me the ability to build something which does ... much like the Aural Stylesheets.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

This toolkit doesn't magically solve the problem for me but it gives me the ability to build something which does ... much like the Aural Stylesheets.


And that is probably where the problem starts. It doesn't magically solve the problem, but does lure web developers into thinking "semantics" is "good enough".

Providing facilities to allow blind people to use a web site isn't really an option. Typically there's legal obligations (various equal rights laws in different countries). Most web developers just couldn't be bothered doing extra work for a relatively small amount of potential users. Instead they create "visual user only" web sites then fail to provide a stylesheet for aural users; and pretend that using semantic markup is "enough".

Basically, "semantic markup" is used as a scapegoat, so web developers can continue doing nothing for blind users despite legal obligations.

Note: Before when I said I hadn't heard of Aural Stylesheets, what I really meant was that I've done several web development modules (all of them that were offered) as part of a CS degree, and hadn't heard of Aural Stylesheets. The university completely skipped over the entire issue. I'm hoping galvanash will reply to this too - he's been doing web development since 1996 or so, and I'd be willing to bet that in those 15 years he's never created an aural stylesheet or tested any of his web sites with a screen reader.

Now consider what would happen if there was an Aural Markup Language (AUML?); and if web developers couldn't rely on the "semantics" scapegoat. Web developers would be forced (by legal obligations) to actually design sites for blind users; and if that happened a lot of people (not just blind people) would use it (it'd be perfect for things like smartphones - imagine browsing OSNews via. headphones while you're out jogging).

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >