| SitePoint Sponsor |
Off Topic:
You've obviously never tried using my not-terrible-smart-phone, then.Originally Posted by markbrown4
Touch the screen to start or continue scrolling, and if it's anywhere near a link, the blasted thing interprets that as a tap. The idea of whole clickable chunks rather than just the odd word fills me with dread - and would stop me even attempting to use such a site on my phone.
If you're a bear made of mohair, ponder on the nature of a mo.
That's not altogether true. If you touch and scroll as you would you do not follow the link. You actually have to tap and release. At least on iOS. In other words it measures intent.Off Topic:
You've obviously never tried using my not-terrible-smart-phone, then.
Yes, it is.
Exactly - you haven't tried doing this on my phone, which is not iOS.
If you're a bear made of mohair, ponder on the nature of a mo.
I actually didn't know this.
Off Topic:
TechnoBear I am QUITE disappointed in you... you are so obviously one of the few left in the world not using iOS!!!
See, you're the problem, not the web site. You're obviously using some ancient technology, like an Atari or something. Or a Nokia. Or an HTC. And you're obnoxious to expect our state of the art internets to work on something older than my grandma. Or HTML5. Or pre Mayan apocalypse.
You know, we web developers simply can't keep coding for the lowest common denominator: clumsy people with fat fingers using ancient non-iOS devices. This would be like coding for Netscape 7 or IE6. If we tried to code for the likes of you, our codebase would be ginormous, up-to-date internets users would be getting a second-rate experience, and you'd never upgrade. A few hundred pounds for a new phone because it doesn't act like the (clearly superiour) iOS phones should either be within your grasp budget-wise, or you really shouldn't be trying to use the internet with it (in psychology, we call this "acceptance". It was common when the iPhone first came out, before everyone finally got one). You know the internet wasn't created for crappy old phones. It was created for phones that don't suck-- iOS phones. Not only do they look sleek and weigh nothing and do pretty much everything for you, but they offer you a seamless internets experience by not sucking the way all other types of phones do. Touch is not only a superiour human-machine interface, but also an interface that Apple has pretty much perfected, like the smooth face of the sweetest Goddess of eternal youth. thank you jobs
Honestly, when I was at the Fronteers conference last October, one of the speakers asked the ~500 attendees (most or all of whom were web developers) "who here has an iPhone?" and I believe almost every hand was up in the air. There was one guy with some Windows phone but I think he was just trying to be a hipster. He was wearing a fedora and had strange facial hair fer sure. What web developers use as phones is pretty much what the rest of the world uses as phones too. These are not two separate demographics. iOS phones are the most popular in the world. Everyone uses them, except Somalians and South-East Asians, and they don't count and they use crappy phones running crappy browses like Opera. You are not Somalian and don't have this excuse.
So the solution to this problem (which, again, is caused by YOU and not the web site), is to either buy an iOS device right now, or stop trying to use the internets with such a broken touch-interface on an old device and then coming onto our developer forums to whinge and complain about it.
Next thing you know, you'll be wanting to play Crysis on a Win95 machine. Or using the internet to bank with. Or write posts on forums.
The only difference between the XHTML 2 approach and the (X)HTML 5 approach is that the latter uses two tags around content instead of one - one to identify what the content is and the second to apply the link.
Either could be as easily implemented as they work identically.
A really simple JavaScript to convert XHTML 2 style links to XHTML 5 style links would read:
Of course if it were really being done on XHTML then you'd probably need to use DOM commands rather than innerHTML but the above code illustrates just how little difference there is between the two.Code:var tags = document.getElementsByTagName('*'); for (var i = tags.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if ('A' !== tags[i].nodeName && '' !== tags[i].href) { tags[i].innerHTML = '<a href="'tags[i].href+'">'+tags[i].innerHTML+'</a>'; tags[i].href = ''; } }
Stephen J Chapman
javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
<input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">
Whice device?Yes, it is.
I realise this is a joke, but the touch era is well and truly upon us now, adopt progress or your own demise.
It's more a rant against monoculture and also something I've noticed kinda regularly recently... where web developers see the technology they use, and the way they use it, as somehow representative of the majority of their own users (unless, of course, your audience IS developers). Current job keeps sending designs for websites clearly made on those ginormous cine-Mac screens, you know, the 33" things nobody's mom has, but pretty much EVERY design bureau does have. Complete with scrollbars on every device I use.
It's one of the first rules of usability: you are not the audience. But usability is somewhere in the bottom-rung of all the things any general web developer has to keep in mind when they build stuff, I know.
Along with understanding there ARE and will continue to be a variety of devices people use to access teh interwebs, we need to understand that how a top-of-the-line product works with our sites is not how 99% of the rest of the devices do, and if General Population is our audience, we need to just... keep those in mind. But for me, this always slides into accessibility... chin cup surfing and all that. Would be nice if those were in many devs minds when they build stuff, but not something I expect, and I may have accepted that (won't stop me from rants, but that's maybe because rants are fun. Plus an outlet for frustration when I have to build broken stuff too. Oh well, pays the mortgage...).
As for touch, I would love to see it evolve to true haptic wonderland... bouncing, resisting, changing texture. I'm not sure if this really needs a whole revolution in materials science or not, but when it comes, it will be awesome.
For me, using touch is like any non-computering senior using a mouse. It's slow, clumsy, difficult. Something I would have to invest quite a bit of money and time into. But, I'm not saying I won't.
Ahh, I pretty much assumed most smart phones were equal to iphone by now. Another reason I'm afraid to switch. I love the screen sizes of the samsong galexes and others in comparison to the iphone 5. But I'm afraid of loosing little things like this that I have become used to.Yes, it is.
It's a Vodafone something-or-other, about 18 months old, with a fold-out QWERTY keyboard and using Opera Mini. The only reason I got it was so that I can test my sites to see that they're usable on mobile. If they work on my low-end phone, then they should be OK on anything.
I do hope you're not suggesting everybody should use touch-screen? If I struggle, I hate to think what the experience would be like for somebody with Parkinson's, cerebral palsy or anything else that affects motor control.
+1
If you're a bear made of mohair, ponder on the nature of a mo.
Off Topic:
Thanks, @Stomme poes , for reassuring me I'm not alone, whilst giving me a good laugh.
A few years ago, the Queen and various members of the Royal Family embarked on a holiday cruise from here. Naturally, we were inundated with journalists and reporters covering the event. They all came with their laptops, fancy phones and other devices - and I had great fun watching them all discover the realities of life. Only one mobile network with decent coverage, so if you're with another one - forget it. (I think we now have a second one that more-or-less works.) When you do get a signal - don't move. There are dead spots all over the village and you can lose the signal at any moment. (In one of the neighbouring villages, the only way to get a signal is to stand right on the end of the pier.) Mobile internet? Forget it. It's improved since then, but still rated as "slow":
Wi-fi hot spots?On a 3G phone You can expect to be able to use email and internet on your 3G phone, indoors and outdoors. However, speeds for downloading files and watching videos online will be slower than you might like.
Using a laptop or tablet here to access the internet will be slow and isn’t recommended.
I confess it was quite entertaining to watch as realisation dawned on them. We're half an hour from Glasgow by air - and a whole world away. However, being a kindly bear at heart, I did direct those I came across to our cybercafe. Oh yes - we're not altogether in the dark ages here.
If you're a bear made of mohair, ponder on the nature of a mo.
It isn't so much about everyone using iOS as everyone using a device that is fit for purpose. I have never owned an iAnything - my first smartphone was a cheap Nokia/Symbian and my current one is a cheap Nokia/Windows. Both have been quite happy with the idea that "touch finger on screen - don't let go - move finger" is a swipe/scroll movement and not a "follow this link" movement. It's a basic function of mobile browsing that you need some way to scroll the page without activating links, and any device that doesn't give this is not fit to be called a mobile internet device. Of course, you don't have to use a touch screen smartphone - there are still phones that have a small screen and a physical keypad, and these are probably easier inasmuch as they allow keypad control to scroll, which is unambiguous.
Any posts I write in Arial are on my mobile phone, so please excuse typos etc.
Any posts I write in Verdana are on a PC, so feel free to berate me mercilessly for any mistakes
@Stevie do at least have android stuff? If not your missing out
I tried Android at the last change and it lasted no more than 1½ hours before I took the SIM card out and went back to my old phone. It was that or throw the blasted thing through the window. I absolutely hated it. I know everyone else seems to be enthralled, but for some reason I just could not get on with it in any way, shape or form. And yet I hit it off with Windows Mobile instantly, even though some of the features that I was annoyed about losing when going from Symbian to Android are still missing.
Any posts I write in Arial are on my mobile phone, so please excuse typos etc.
Any posts I write in Verdana are on a PC, so feel free to berate me mercilessly for any mistakes
Whether HTML5 allows it or not this is just a bad idea BECAUSE:
1) you could inadvertently make an anchor a child of another anchor, especially if you are relying on a CMS.
2) Get lazy in your THOUHT process. Some people may start wrapping the anchor around an LI, for example
I would advise wrapping CONTENTS of the DIV and treating the DIV as the wrapper. It is after all also quite valid to do: <A><P> ,<A><UL>, and so forth.
Brilliant ideas, elegant execution.
Graphic Design, Art Direction, Copywriting and Web Design.
Sorry but I really don't see your objection here. Yes, it's illegal to nest an anchor inside an anchor, but it's just as possible to do it with <a> tags being allowed inline only. You could still end up with illegal code such as
if your editor doesn't enforce correct code structure. There's no reason why this should be any more likely with block-level anchors. You should only be making a block anchor where it's clear what you want to link to, so there shouldn't be a whole load of problems where you even want to nest another anchor inside it. I can think of plenty of examples where it would be appropriate to wrap an anchor round an <li> tag, particularly if the <li> itself includes block elements.HTML Code:<p>Here is <a href="#">an anchor <b>with some text bold <a href="#">and another anchor</a> nested</b> inside</a> it.</p>
Any posts I write in Arial are on my mobile phone, so please excuse typos etc.
Any posts I write in Verdana are on a PC, so feel free to berate me mercilessly for any mistakes
My objection is that in the case you have listed the nested anchor most likely occurs out of either lack of knowledge or willful negligence. Kinda like someone nesting a UL inside a P.Sorry but I really don't see your objection here.
However because DIVs contain .. well anything .. its possible to create templates that will on occasion INADVERTENTLY nest anchors, or paint you into a corner where you have nested anchors. Like I said above this is likely to happen ONLY in the case of CMSs or when you hand your templates off to a clients for them to populate with content, but still is something that should be considered
Brilliant ideas, elegant execution.
Graphic Design, Art Direction, Copywriting and Web Design.
This is a separate problem to changing a rule about what can nest within an anchor.My objection is that in the case you have listed the nested anchor most likely occurs out of either lack of knowledge or willful negligence. Kinda like someone nesting a UL inside a P.
This is the problem of stupid people, ignorant people, mistakes by non-stupid and non-ignorant people, and stupid things (machines) writing code. Though honestly I would think following validation rules is something a stupid machine could do. Machines are pretty good at blindly following rules. You'd think they could follow rules of HTML, whichever ones you choose to give them.
Preventing a change in rules does not prevent the above problem. You're just hoping that not changing the rules will lead more letting the current set of rules to still work despite the above problem: that is, if a stupid CMS wrote everything in divs, it couldn't possibly fail validation so long as it could follow basic nesting rules. It wouldn't need to know *what* the tag was.
But HTML is not a regular language*; it has complex rules and I'm generally not against changing those rules, provided there are good reasons. Whenever you get more complex rules ("some thingies may be nested within other thingies, except when the nested is the same type as the nestee, if either are any of the following types of thingies"), yes you'll get more errors. But there was a point to the rules being that complex in the first place, and we like the benefits we get from them, and we cannot stop the Stupid People Problem simply by reducing complexity here cause then we'll lose our benefits. We likeses our benefitses, we likeses them.
And the reasons people state for wanting anchors to be able to wrap block chunks of stuff? I can see the same requirement for forms (containing subforms and non-form things, the latter of which too many people do already) for large applications. The old HTML+HTTP GET/POST set of options stops working when you have chunks of things that need to act like forms yet still have an over-arching "submit" button who can send all the other separate forms' data as one thing. Today people just use Javascript for this instead, sometimes with many small forms, more often without any forms at all.
* actually I need to go look up if HTML is a regular language, but I thought I read that it wasn't. bbl
Anything that allows for more flexibility to adjust to whatever the situation demands is a good thing in my eyes. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to. But it does give the option which is good in my opinion.
I agree, the reason would have been because most browsers out there already supported links around block level elements. So the only thing that needed changing were the validation rules.
Still, I don't understand the arguments against this. The fact is that you should be able to link any type of content. Whether that content can best be described best using block or inline HTML elements is completely irrelevant.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks