Tue, 2006-07-25 04:55
This is a repost (roughly) of one that did not survive the changeover.
In response to a question posted to the Devshed forum, I created a page to address the rendering of block and inline quotes, the blockquote and q elements, respectively.
The question is whether the statements regarding accessibility with screen readers are correct. There has already been some discussion which amounted to the members sharing our ignorance with each other. We (I, at least) have been awaiting our resident accessibility guru's input. So, Lorraine, have you found your way through the new maze to Off Topic?
cheers,
gary
Tue, 2006-07-25 08:47
#1
But we did at least share
But we did at least share our ignorance in an intelligent and reasoned fashion! well at least I tried to disguise my ignorance as much as possible.
The gist of which, I think, was given that I/we tend/tended to overlook the use of the 'q' tag due to the problems with certain browsers not playing ball, and instead directly quoting text. The work around actually was obvious and easily overlooked in cancelling out the 'q' tags default :after/:before generated content and then adding in quote marks for all to render; we arrive at a happy compromise allowing the use of the semantic tag but avoiding double quoting text; however the question is raised as to how screen readers actually deal with these sorts of tags, yes we love semantic markup, but does a screen reader not come across directly entered speech marks and recognize what they are? in which case what actually does the use of the 'q' tag bring to the party apart from extra markup( deliberate ignorance- slight devils advocate mode engaged! )
Over to Lorraine!
Hugo
Ooh spell checkers good, seems to be working now, entered some deliberate errors and it picked them all up!!
Tue, 2006-07-25 09:32
#2
Rescued from Google's cache...
On using blockquote and q--an accessibility issue
_________________
kk5st
Guru
Yoo hoo! Lorraine!
I just added a page on using q and blockquote in html pages to my site[1]. The impetus for the page was the q element and its quote mark issues as related to screen readers. I'd appreciate some advice on the accuracy of my statements regarding screen readers.
cheers,
gary
[1] I'm kind of afraid to mention the site, since every time I do it seems to go down Sad
_________________
Hugo
Guru
Sorry I'm not Lorraine, but read with interest the original post that prompted your article Gary as I had tended to dismiss this tag due to the stated problems, it's always the simplest solutions that seem to evade us and that one would think should be obvious.
One thing that strikes me though, and I may show extreme ignorance here, is in using direct quote marks in place of the 'q' tag does a screen reader not read them as quotes? As much as I would always wish to use a semantic tag where possible does this actually cause a screen reader problems, does using the 'q' tag actually bring anything special to the party?
Hugo.
_________________
kk5st
Guru
Well, now, that's the crux of the matter, is it not? Kyla (I can't keep doing kutekyla) stated that it does make a difference to the screen reader. I took her word for it, but would like confirmation from another knowledgeable party. Fangs does not differentiate the q element at all, or even the quote marks. Thus, the call to Lorraine.
Whether accessibility is an issue or not, it is the semantic markup, even if we have to do a work-around for IE.
cheers,
gary
_________________
Hugo
Guru
Agreed about the semantic use even if one is having to use a workaround for the Redmond Browser.
_________________
kk5st
Guru
It's about 10ayem there isn't it? Lorraine ought to be up and about, and I can't imagine she'd have anything more pressing to do than jump on my little query. Shocked Why don't you give her a call? Very Happy
Wouldn't that start sumthin'? Wink
cheers,
gary
_________________
Hugo
Guru
Smile M'lady only has eyes for T Sad
Probably just need to shout a bit louder
LORRAINE....COOEE LORRAINE.. up and at em we need your sageness.
_________________
thepineapplehead
Guru
Personally, I've always hated the way that typeography and journalism uses quote makrs before the start of new lines, but never at the end. Always looks so messy:
Blah blah here's
a news article and
someone told me
about it:
"blah blah I think
this and that.
"Here's the same
quote with another
quote mark.
"Finally, the last
paragraph closes
the quotes."
I don't get it?
_________________
roytheboy
Guru
The quotes normally surround large blocks of text (paragraphs), not lines, and it is logical. The start quotes (66) mark the start of quoted speech, and the end quotes (99) mark the end. But what about para breaks? It's not logical to close the quote and then immediately open it again, but unless you remind the reader that the new para is still part of the quoted text, they might get a little lost as they start the next paragraph. Personally, I find that the traditional convention works very well in practice, which is probably why it is still used today. Think of it as a standard to be followed for the sake of clarity; much like web coding standards.
_________________
thepineapplehead
Guru
Ah, okies, thanks for that
_________________
Tue, 2006-07-25 09:51
#3
Now that's clever! So Roy
Now that's clever!
So Roy can you post the other 968 posts that vanished 
I need me emoticons 
Tue, 2006-07-25 12:12
#4
In a word NO!
In a word: NO!
Sat, 2006-09-02 05:36
#5
Gez Lemon over at Juicy
Sat, 2006-09-02 12:31
#6
well that puts paid to that
well that puts paid to that fix then, which that poor girl strove so hard to ensure you attributed to and spelt her name correctly in your explanation of the fix.
Guess moral of the story is read the specs then re-read the specs.
So sad that once more a convoluted approach has to be taken to achieve something that we actually shouldn't have to be thinking twice about, actually shouldn't need to be concerned with at all, why is coding life so awkward... oh yes silly me!
Sun, 2006-09-03 06:37
#7
@ Hugo: I thought you
@ Hugo: I thought you realized manual entry of the quotes was counter to the rules—kinda like using IE ought to be. 
I was too late to add a comment to Gez's blog, so I emailed this reply:
Quote:
I finally found the time to respond, and you had closed comments six hours before. This is a topic we discussed at CSSCreator ( http://www.csscreator.com/node/17258 and http://garyblue.port5.com/webdev/quotes.html ). We more or less settled on there being no good way to deal with it without going counter to the specs.
I think going at it with scripting has a certain elegant appeal, but fails should javascript fail. Further, if you're going to buck the standards, doing it in the background doesn't make the approach any more valid. The script route leaves only Lynx and like browsers with valid markup, and sans added quote-marks.
The importance of the quote marks to readability, and the importance of the q tag to assistive technology says to me that failure is not an option. The less elegant manual quote-mark entry and css to null the proper defaults is more robust. Only Lynx, et al., have the problem of doubled quote-marks.
cheers,
gary
Sun, 2006-09-03 10:22
#8
yeah , need an emoticon for
yeah , need an emoticon for sardonic!
There is no way on earth that every time I come to type a <q> tag I'm going to slap forehead uttering "doh silly me can't do that must look out that library function for scripting that tag"
It works fine for me! when I'm contacted and praised for the work done but then it's pointed out that I appear to have forgotten to quote some text I shall reply "er actually I did!" to which the response will probably run along the lines of "Oh it's just that I didn't notice them" I will naturally respond with "out of interest what browser are you using?" with the inevitable reply being, "IE of course, are there others then?". Through clenched teeth I shall reply in the affirmative, "Oh " comes the response " so what is the problem?" I reply "The use of a browser that doesn't work like what it should". client now loosing patience with the replies says "Can you fix it then!?" "No" I reply " Sorry but IE is closed source code, and I'm not a programmer" client now getting tired of the conversation says "Well is there a work around, what can we do about this?" with relish I reply " There are two choices here, 1. You can continue to browse with IE and accept these things or 2. You could take 5 mins out of your life and install a modern browser that works correctly, I leave the choice in your hands"
This is of course predicated on my belief that I actually have a spine and have no bills needing paying, and yes, I do live in a fantasy world.
Sun, 2006-09-03 18:50
#9
As much as it pains the anal
As much as it pains the anal retentive standardistas among us, well Hugo and me, anyway, we are forced to break the rules occassionally for the sake of a PoS majority browser.
cheers,
gary
Wed, 2006-09-27 09:19
#10
Q raises its head at A List Apart
The Q element is discussed at A list Apart in an article by Stacey Cordoni (Stacey was posting as Kutekyla over at DevShed), the impetus for my posts and Q & Blockquote demonstration page.
Way to go Stacey!
cheers,
gary
Wed, 2006-09-27 09:45
#11
I think ,perhaps that in
I think ,perhaps that in conclusion she should have laid emphasis on the fact that this is a fix for CSS styled content; although mentioned earlier that double quotes would arise if added manually along with the q tag, it should perhaps have stated that this condition will arise with content rendered sans the CSS styles fix suggested, just for clarity.
A shame she didn't cite your involvement and contribution!
Hugo.
Wed, 2006-09-27 22:29
#12
Just for grins, Google
Just for grins, Google quoted from Ben and Jerry. Look at the sixth entry on the first returned page (as of 9/27/06) .
cheers,
gary
Thu, 2006-09-28 07:17
#13
Now that will teach you to
Now that will teach you to not be so silly with your quotes, "Looking for Gary Turners thoughts and musings on web coding?, just search on famous ice cream manufacturers "
However you do seem to have climbed to fourth place.
This has made my morning "How to Misfile ones work under ice cream manufacturers"
For all your much vaunted skills I now think SEO may not be one of them do you offer it as a service to your clients?
Thu, 2006-09-28 18:41
#14
Budding SEO genius
Hugo wrote:
For all your much vaunted skills I now think SEO may not be one of them Smiling do you offer it as a service to your clients?
Oh, I don't know. I may start; it seems you only need to include a reference to Ben and Jerry to get a good placement.
cheers,
gary