audio-info-issues: Difference between revisions

From Microformats Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
= Audio info issues =
= Audio info issues =


== Redundant property names ==
== Problem: Redundant Property Names ==
The audio info proposal has invented several new properties. This should be condensed, removed and/or discussed further


* [[audio-info-proposal#Image Summary|image-summary]] I can not determine if this is a description of the image, in which case it should NOT be a MUST to use the <img> element, (it shouldn't be a MUST anyway). There are several other formats that already use the PHOTO property, including [[hcard|hCard]] and [[hreview|hReview]]. This has potential to collapse and remove image-summary.
The audio info proposal has invented several new properties. These should be condensed, removed and/or discussed further.


* [[audio-info-proposal#Audio Title|audio-title]] There is the on going debate where this should be something else such as FN or SUMMARY
=== image-summary Property ===


* [[audio-info-proposal#Published Date|published-date]] is a duplicate of the PUBLISHED property found-in [[hatom|hAtom]]. This can be collapsed to a single property name.
[[audio-info-proposal#Image Summary|image-summary]] - This is a small graphic image that summarizes the audio piece. It should NOT be a MUST to use the <img> element, (it shouldn't be a MUST anyway) ~BrianSuda. There are several other formats that already use the PHOTO property, including [[hcard|hCard]] and [[hreview|hReview]]. This has potential to collapse and remove image-summary.
 
====Possible Solutions====
 
# Use PHOTO instead.
 
=== audio-title Property ===
 
[[audio-info-proposal#Audio Title|audio-title]] - There is the on going debate where this should be something else such as FN or SUMMARY.
 
====Possible Solutions====
 
# Use FN instead
# Use SUMMARY instead
 
=== published-date Property ===
 
[[audio-info-proposal#Published Date|published-date]] is a duplicate of the PUBLISHED property found-in [[hatom|hAtom]]. This can be collapsed to a single property name.
**or <code>dtstart</code>, from hCalendar (shouldn't the published date be an hCalendar event?) [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]]
**or <code>dtstart</code>, from hCalendar (shouldn't the published date be an hCalendar event?) [[User:AndyMabbett|Andy Mabbett]]
====Possible Solutions====
# Use PUBLISHED instead
# Use DTSTART instead


==Problem: Graphic buttons in rel-patterns ==
==Problem: Graphic buttons in rel-patterns ==

Revision as of 03:42, 2 August 2007

Audio info issues

Problem: Redundant Property Names

The audio info proposal has invented several new properties. These should be condensed, removed and/or discussed further.

image-summary Property

image-summary - This is a small graphic image that summarizes the audio piece. It should NOT be a MUST to use the <img> element, (it shouldn't be a MUST anyway) ~BrianSuda. There are several other formats that already use the PHOTO property, including hCard and hReview. This has potential to collapse and remove image-summary.

Possible Solutions

  1. Use PHOTO instead.

audio-title Property

audio-title - There is the on going debate where this should be something else such as FN or SUMMARY.

Possible Solutions

  1. Use FN instead
  2. Use SUMMARY instead

published-date Property

published-date is a duplicate of the PUBLISHED property found-in hAtom. This can be collapsed to a single property name.

    • or dtstart, from hCalendar (shouldn't the published date be an hCalendar event?) Andy Mabbett

Possible Solutions

  1. Use PUBLISHED instead
  2. Use DTSTART instead

Problem: Graphic buttons in rel-patterns

It is quite often that a site uses an image instead of a text link to present actions. For example: Instead of using the text "Download", they will use a graphic image with a downward-facing arrow.

In other words, if we have this:

Download: 

<a href="http://my.site.com/download/3847293">
 <img src="/images/cool_download_button.png"/>
</a>

How do we present this option to a human being in a non-web-page UI?

Affected Parties

Any site that uses images for links. 'rel-sample', 'rel-enclosure', and 'rel-payment' are affected. Most of the examples also contain images instead of text for samples, downloads and purchase links. This is a demonstrable, widespread problem.

If there is no text to display, then how does one place the item into a menu/display for Operator/Firefox? Grabbing the image and placing it in a UI is a difficult argument to make - there are a variety of image sizes that might not do well in the Operator UI (or Firefox 3 UI).

Potential Solutions

Use the TITLE Attribute on the rel-pattern Links

Using @title was proposed in the following post to the mailing list:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000590.html

Here is an example markup: 

<a rel="rel-enclosure" title="Download My Song"
   href="http://my.site.com/download/MySong.mp3">
 <img src="/images/cool_download_button.png"/>
</a>
Benefits
  1. It POSH-ifies the website.
  2. It works well with Operator, Firefox 3 and other uF parsers/UIs.
  3. It fixes the accessibility/screen reader problem.
Drawbacks
  1. There are arguments stating that the @alt attribute would be a better choice: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000593.html

Use the ALT Attribute on the IMG Elements

Using @alt was proposed in the following post to the mailing list:

http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000593.html

Here is example markup: 

<a rel="rel-enclosure" href="http://my.site.com/download/MySong.mp3">
 <img alt="Download My Song" src="/images/cool_download_button.png"/>
</a>
Benefits
  1. Valid HTML requires that the ALT tag is specified anyway, thus we're helping people write proper HTML.
  2. Because of the item above, this is in-line with what most text-based browsers and screen readers expect.
  3. There is no danger of @title and @alt both being specified and read by a screen reader.
Drawbacks
  1. The point was raised that ALT tags are not used properly on the web: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000598.html and http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard-faq#Why_is_IMG_alt_not_being_picked_up
History
  1. ALT was proposed on the mailing list: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000593.html
  2. The point was raised that ALT tags are not used properly on the web: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000598.html
  3. Research was started on ALT tag usage on the web: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000614.html and http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000596.html
  4. Analysis on ALT tag usage on the web was reported: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000624.html and http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000627.html
  5. A very long argument started on the use/mis-use of ALT: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000603.html
  6. More research was performed and presented to the list asserting that ALT is not being mis-used on the web: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000629.html
  7. It was asserted that the research completed was not acceptable: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000635.html
  8. Things got nasty: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000637.html
  9. Posting stopped due to an End of Thread request: http://microformats.org/discuss/mail/microformats-new/2007-July/000644.html
  10. The issue and discussion was documented on the wiki.
Retrieved from "http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=audio-info-issues&oldid=19153"