hreview-feedback - Revision history

Tantek: Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by Tantek

2013-04-07T04:55:13Z

Reverted edits by ABIDEEN10 (Talk) to last version by Tantek

Show changes

ABIDEEN10 at 03:32, 7 April 2013

2013-04-07T03:32:29Z

Show changes

Tantek: Reverted edits by Davemanfi (Talk) to last version by Aroot

2011-04-09T15:56:18Z

Reverted edits by Davemanfi (Talk) to last version by Aroot

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:56, 9 April 2011
Line 379:		Line 379:
	My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility.		My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility.
	<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>		<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>
	~~an example of this can be found at [http://www.carrgamesonline.net/ car games]~~
	<pre><nowiki>		<pre><nowiki>
	<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>		<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>

Davemanfi: example sited.

2011-04-08T14:04:27Z

example sited.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 8 April 2011
Line 379:		Line 379:
	My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility.		My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility.
	<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>		<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>
			an example of this can be found at [http://www.carrgamesonline.net/ car games]
	<pre><nowiki>		<pre><nowiki>
	<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>		<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-09T23:24:39Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 9 April 2010
Line 377:		Line 377:
	{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-08</span> raised by <span class="fn">Andy Root</span></span>		{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-08</span> raised by <span class="fn">Andy Root</span></span>
	<div class="entry-content discussion issues">		<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
	My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.		My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them. This is not a good user experience not to mention the issues around accessibility.
	<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>		<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>
	<pre><nowiki>		<pre><nowiki>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-09T17:41:01Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 9 April 2010
Line 382:		Line 382:
	<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>		<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>
	</nowiki></pre>		</nowiki></pre>
	~~<p>It's a not perfect semantic solution either but I think it is more valid than using abbr</p>~~
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-09T17:40:13Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 9 April 2010
Line 382:		Line 382:
	<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>		<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>
	</nowiki></pre>		</nowiki></pre>
			<p>It's a not perfect semantic solution either but I think it is more valid than using abbr</p>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-09T17:25:35Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 9 April 2010
Line 377:		Line 377:
	{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-08</span> raised by <span class="fn">Andy Root</span></span>		{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-08</span> raised by <span class="fn">Andy Root</span></span>
	<div class="entry-content discussion issues">		<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
	My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the abbr tag ~~which is probably the most semantic~~. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner~~, that~~ makes sense~~. The problem is~~ the tag is being used in the opposite manner ~~it was intended~~. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.		My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the <i>abbr</i> tag. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner. This would makes sense if the <i>abbr</i> tag was intended for that use but it is being used in the opposite manner. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.
	<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>		<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>
	<pre><nowiki>		<pre><nowiki>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-09T17:20:17Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 9 April 2010
Line 378:		Line 378:
	<div class="entry-content discussion issues">		<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
	My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the abbr tag which is probably the most semantic. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner, that makes sense. The problem is the tag is being used in the opposite manner it was intended. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.		My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the abbr tag which is probably the most semantic. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner, that makes sense. The problem is the tag is being used in the opposite manner it was intended. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.
			<p>I suggest using the <i>ins</i> tag, which defines text that has been inserted into a document and datetime specifies the date and time when the text was inserted/changed.</p>
			<pre><nowiki>
			<ins class="dtreviewed" datetime="20050418">April 18th, 2005</ins>
			</nowiki></pre>
	</div>		</div>
	</div>		</div>

Aroot: /* General Comments */

2010-04-08T20:47:41Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 8 April 2010
Line 374:		Line 374:
	</div>		</div>

			<div class="hentry">
			{{OpenIssue}} <span class="entry-summary author vcard"><span class="published">2010-04-08</span> raised by <span class="fn">Andy Root</span></span>
			<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
			My concern is about the way dtreviewed is handled. It is suggested that the date be wrapped in the abbr tag which is probably the most semantic. Since an ISO8601 absolute date time is NOT a friendly way to represent a date we use the abbr to represent it in a friendly manner, that makes sense. The problem is the tag is being used in the opposite manner it was intended. The friendly text should be placed in the title attribute and the abbr value should be the unfriendly (usually short) version. When a user mouses over they get the friendly version that helps the user understand the abbreviation. You see the hReview experience is opposite, the user sees an already understandable piece of information being a friendly way to represent a date but when they mouse over it they get a bunch of characters that don't make sense to them.

			</div>
			</div>

	==Related pages==		==Related pages==
	{{hreview-related-pages}}		{{hreview-related-pages}}