Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (5290)

• The use cases for a element in HTML

  27 novembre 2012, par silvia

  The W3C HTML WG and the WHATWG are currently discussing the introduction of a <main> element into HTML.

  The <main> element has been proposed by Steve Faulkner and is specified in a draft extension spec which is about to be accepted as a FPWD (first public working draft) by the W3C HTML WG. This implies that the W3C HTML WG will be looking for implementations and for feedback by implementers on this spec.

  I am supportive of the introduction of a <main> element into HTML. However, I believe that the current spec and use case list don’t make a good enough case for its introduction. Here are my thoughts.

  Main use case : accessibility

  In my opinion, the main use case for the introduction of <main> is accessibility.

  Like any other users, when blind users want to perceive a Web page/application, they need to have a quick means of grasping the content of a page. Since they cannot visually scan the layout and thus determine where the main content is, they use accessibility technology (AT) to find what is known as “landmarks”.

  “Landmarks” tell the user what semantic content is on a page : a header (such as a banner), a search box, a navigation menu, some asides (also called complementary content), a footer, …. and the most important part : the main content of the page. It is this main content that a blind user most often wants to skip to directly.

  In the days of HTML4, a hidden “skip to content” link at the beginning of the Web page was used as a means to help blind users access the main content.

  In the days of ARIA, the aria @role=main enables authors to avoid a hidden link and instead mark the element where the main content begins to allow direct access to the main content. This attribute is supported by AT – in particular screen readers – by making it part of the landmarks that AT can directly skip to.

  Both the hidden link and the ARIA @role=main approaches are, however, band aids : they are being used by those of us that make “finished” Web pages accessible by adding specific extra markup.

  A world where ARIA is not necessary and where accessibility developers would be out of a job because the normal markup that everyone writes already creates accessible Web sites/applications would be much preferable over the current world of band-aids.

  Therefore, to me, the primary use case for a <main> element is to achieve exactly this better world and not require specialized markup to tell a user (or a tool) where the main content on a page starts.

  An immediate effect would be that pages that have a <main> element will expose a “main” landmark to blind and vision-impaired users that will enable them to directly access that main content on the page without having to wade through other text on the page. Without a <main> element, this functionality can currently only be provided using heuristics to skip other semantic and structural elements and is for this reason not typically implemented in AT.

  Other use cases

  The <main> element is a semantic element not unlike other new semantic elements such as <header>, <footer>, <aside>, <article>, <nav>, or <section>. Thus, it can also serve other uses where the main content on a Web page/Web application needs to be identified.

  Data mining

  For data mining of Web content, the identification of the main content is one of the key challenges. Many scholarly articles have been published on this topic. This stackoverflow article references and suggests a multitude of approaches, but the accepted answer says “there’s no way to do this that’s guaranteed to work”. This is because Web pages are inherently complex and many <div>, <p>, <iframe> and other elements are used to provide markup for styling, notifications, ads, analytics and other use cases that are necessary to make a Web page complete, but don’t contribute to what a user consumes as semantically rich content. A <main> element will allow authors to pro-actively direct data mining tools to the main content.

  Search engines

  One particularly important “data mining” tool are search engines. They, too, have a hard time to identify which sections of a Web page are more important than others and employ many heuristics to do so, see e.g. this ACM article. Yet, they still disappoint with poor results pointing to findings of keywords in little relevant sections of a page rather than ranking Web pages higher where the keywords turn up in the main content area. A <main> element would be able to help search engines give text in main content areas a higher weight and prefer them over other areas of the Web page. It would be able to rank different Web pages depending on where on the page the search words are found. The <main> element will be an additional hint that search engines will digest.

  Visual focus

  On small devices, the display of Web pages designed for Desktop often causes confusion as to where the main content can be found and read, in particular when the text ends up being too small to be readable. It would be nice if browsers on small devices had a functionality (maybe a default setting) where Web pages would start being displayed as zoomed in on the main content. This could alleviate some of the headaches of responsive Web design, where the recommendation is to show high priority content as the first content. Right now this problem is addressed through stylesheets that re-layout the page differently depending on device, but again this is a band-aid solution. Explicit semantic markup of the main content can solve this problem more elegantly.

  Styling

  Finally, naturally, <main> would also be used to style the main content differently from others. You can e.g. replace a semantically meaningless <div id=”main”> with a semantically meaningful <main> where their position is identical. My analysis below shows, that this is not always the case, since oftentimes <div id=”main”> is used to group everything together that is not the header – in particular where there are multiple columns. Thus, the ease of styling a <main> element is only a positive side effect and not actually a real use case. It does make it easier, however, to adapt the style of the main content e.g. with media queries.

  Proposed alternative solutions

  It has been proposed that existing markup serves to satisfy the use cases that <main> has been proposed for. Let’s analyse these on some of the most popular Web sites. First let’s list the propsed algorithms.

  Proposed solution No 1 : Scooby-Doo

  On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote :
  | The main content is whatever content isn’t
  | marked up as not being main content (anything not marked up with <header>,
  | <aside>, <nav>, etc).
  

  This implies that the first element that is not a <header>, <aside>, <nav>, or <footer> will be the element that we want to give to a blind user as the location where they should start reading. The algorithm is implemented in https://gist.github.com/4032962.

  Proposed solution No 2 : First article element

  On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote :
  | On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ian Yang wrote :
  | >
  | > That’s a good idea. We really need an element to wrap all the <p>s,
  | > <ul>s, <ol>s, <figure>s, <table>s ... etc of a blog post.
  |
  | That’s called <article>.
  

  This approach identifies the first <article> element on the page as containing the main content. Here’s the algorithm for this approach.

  Proposed solution No 3 : An example heuristic approach

  The readability plugin has been developed to make Web pages readable by essentially removing all the non-main content from a page. An early source of readability is available. This demonstrates what a heuristic approach can perform.

  Analysing alternative solutions

  Comparison

  I’ve picked 4 typical Websites (top on Alexa) to analyse how these three different approaches fare. Ideally, I’d like to simply apply the above three scripts and compare pictures. However, since the semantic HTML5 elements <header>, <aside>, <nav>, and <footer> are not actually used by any of these Web sites, I don’t actually have this choice.

  So, instead, I decided to make some assumptions of where these semantic elements would be used and what the outcome of applying the first two algorithms would be. I can then compare it to the third, which is a product so we can take screenshots.

  Google.com

  http://google.com – search for “Scooby Doo”.

  The search results page would likely be built with :

  • a <nav> menu for the Google bar
  • a <header> for the search bar
  • another <header> for the login section
  • another <nav> menu for the search types
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • a <div> for the app bar with the search number
  • a few <aside>s for the left and right column
  • a set of <article>s for the search results

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element before the app bar in this case. Interestingly, there is a <div @id=main> already in the current Google results page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, there are a nav bar and two asides in this div, which clearly should not be part of the “main content”. Google actually placed a @role=main on a different element, namely the one that encapsulates all the search results.

  “First Article” would find the first search result as the “main content”. While not quite the same as what Google intended – namely all search results – it is close enough to be useful.

  The “readability” result is interesting, since it is not able to identify the main text on the page. It is actually aware of this problem and brings a warning before displaying this page :

  

  Facebook.com

  https://facebook.com

  A user page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search and login bar
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • an <aside> for the left column
  • a <div> to contain the center and right column
  • an <aside> for the right column
  • a <header> to contain the center column “megaphone”
  • a <div> for the status posting
  • a set of <article>s for the home stream

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains all three columns. It’s actually a <div @id=content> already in the current Facebook user page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, Facebook selected a different element to place the @role=main : the center column.

  “First Article” would find the first news item in the home stream. This is clearly not what Facebook intended, since they placed the @role=main on the center column, above the first blog post’s title. “First Article” would miss that title and the status posting.

  The “readability” result again disappoints but warns that it failed :

  

  YouTube.com

  http://youtube.com

  A video page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search and login bar
  • a <nav> for the menu
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • a <header> for the video title and channel links
  • a <div> to contain the video with controls
  • a <div> to contain the center and right column
  • an <aside> for the right column with an <article> per related video
  • an <aside> for the information below the video
  • a <article> per comment below the video

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains the rest of the page. It’s actually a <div @id=content> already in the current YouTube video page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, YouTube’s related videos and comments are unlikely to be what the user would regard as “main content” – it’s the video they are after, which generously has a <div id=watch-player>.

  “First Article” would find the first related video or comment in the home stream. This is clearly not what YouTube intends.

  The “readability” result is not quite as unusable, but still very bare :

  

  Wikipedia.com

  http://wikipedia.com (“Overscan” page)

  A Wikipedia page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search, login and menu items
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • an &ls; article> with title and lots of text
  • <article> an <aside> with the table of contents
  • several <aside>s for the left column

  Good news : “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains the rest of the page. It’s actually a <div id=”content” role=”main”> element on Wikipedia, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick.

  “First Article” would find the title and text of the main element on the page, but it would also include an <aside>.

  The “readability” result is also in agreement.

  

  Results

  In the following table we have summarised the results for the experiments :

  Site	Scooby-Doo	First article	Readability
  Google.com	FAIL	SUCCESS	FAIL
  Facebook.com	FAIL	FAIL	FAIL
  YouTube.com	FAIL	FAIL	FAIL
  Wikipedia.com	SUCCESS	SUCCESS	SUCCESS

  Clearly, Wikipedia is the prime example of a site where even the simple approaches find it easy to determine the main content on the page. WordPress blogs are similarly successful. Almost any other site, including news sites, social networks and search engine sites are petty hopeless with the proposed approaches, because there are too many elements that are used for layout or other purposes (notifications, hidden areas) such that the pre-determined list of semantic elements that are available simply don’t suffice to mark up a Web page/application completely.

  Conclusion

  It seems that in general it is impossible to determine which element(s) on a Web page should be the “main” piece of content that accessibility tools jump to when requested, that a search engine should put their focus on, or that should be highlighted to a general user to read. It would be very useful if the author of the Web page would provide a hint through a <main> element where that main content is to be found.

  I think that the <main> element becomes particularly useful when combined with a default keyboard shortcut in browsers as proposed by Steve : we may actually find that non-accessibility users will also start making use of this shortcut, e.g. to get to videos on YouTube pages directly without having to tab over search boxes and other interactive elements, etc. Worthwhile markup indeed.

• Adjusting The Timetable and SQL Shame

  16 août 2012, par Multimedia Mike — General, Python, sql

  My Game Music Appreciation website has a big problem that many visitors quickly notice and comment upon. The problem looks like this :

  
  
  

  The problem is that all of these songs are 2m30s in length. During the initial import process, unless a chiptune file already had curated length metadata attached, my metadata utility emitted a default play length of 150 seconds. This is not good if you want to listen to all the songs in a soundtrack without interacting with the player page, but have various short songs (think “game over” or other quick jingles) that are over in a few seconds. Such songs still pad out 150 seconds of silence.

  So I needed to correct this. Possible solutions :

  1. Manually : At first, I figured I could ask the database which songs needed fixing and listen to them to determine the proper lengths. Then I realized that there were well over 1400 games affected by this problem. This just screams “automated solution”.
  2. Automatically : Ask the database which songs need fixing and then somehow ask the computer to listen to the songs and decide their proper lengths. This sounds like a winner, provided that I can figure out how to programmatically determine if a song has “finished”.

  SQL Shame
  This play adjustment task has been on my plate for a long time. A key factor that has blocked me is that I couldn’t figure out a single SQL query to feed to the SQLite database underlying the site which would give me all the songs I needed. To be clear, it was very simple and obvious to me how to write a program that would query the database in phases to get all the information. However, I felt that it would be impure to proceed with the task unless I could figure out one giant query to get all the information.

  This always seems to come up whenever I start interacting with a database in any serious way. I call it SQL shame. This task got some traction when I got over this nagging doubt and told myself that there’s nothing wrong with the multi-step query program if it solves the problem at hand.

  Suddenly, I had a flash of inspiration about why the so-called NoSQL movement exists. Maybe there are a lot more people who don’t like trying to derive such long queries and are happy to allow other languages to pick up the slack.

  Estimating Lengths
  Anyway, my solution involved writing a Python script to iterate through all the games whose metadata was output by a certain engine (the one that makes the default play length 150 seconds). For each of those games, the script queries the song table and determines if each song is exactly 150 seconds. If it is, then go to work trying to estimate the true length.

  The forgoing paragraph describes what I figured was possible with only a single (possibly large) SQL query.

  For each song represented in the chiptune file, I ran it through a custom length estimator program. My brilliant (err, naïve) solution to the length estimation problem was to synthesize seconds of audio up to a maximum of 120 seconds (tightening up the default length just a bit) and counting how many of those seconds had all 0 samples. If the count reached 5 consecutive seconds of silence, then the estimator rewound the running length by 5 seconds and declared that to be the proper length. Update the database.

  There were about 1430 chiptune files whose songs needed updates. Some files had 1 single song. Some files had over 100. When I let the script run, it took nearly 65 minutes to process all the files. That was a single-threaded solution, of course. Even though I already had the data I needed, I wanted to try to hand at parallelizing the script. So I went to work with Python’s multiprocessing module and quickly refactored it to use all 4 CPU threads on the machine where the files live. Results :

  • Single-threaded solution : 64m42s to process corpus (22 games/minute)
  • Multi-threaded solution : 18m48s with 4 CPU threads (75 games/minute)

  More than a 3x speedup across 4 CPU threads, which is decent for a primarily CPU-bound operation.

  Epilogue
  I suspect that this task will require some refinement or manual intervention. Maybe there are songs which actually have more than 5 legitimate seconds of silence. Also, I entertained the possibility that some songs would generate very low amplitude noise rather than being perfectly silent. In that case, I could refine the script to stipulate that amplitudes below a certain threshold count as 0. Fortunately, I marked which games were modified by this method, so I can run a new script as necessary.

  SQL Schema
  Here is the schema of my SQlite3 database, for those who want to try their hand at a proper query. I am confident that it’s possible ; I just didn’t have the patience to work it out. The task is to retrieve all the rows from the games table where all of the corresponding songs in the songs table is 150000 milliseconds.
  

  sql

  < view plain text >

  1. CREATE TABLE games
  2.   (
  3.    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  4.    uncompressed_sha1 TEXT,
  5.    uncompressed_size INTEGER,
  6.    compressed_sha1 TEXT,
  7.    compressed_size INTEGER,
  8.    system TEXT,
  9.    game TEXT,
  10.    gme_system TEXT default NULL,
  11.    canonical_url TEXT default NULL,
  12.    extension TEXT default "gamemusicxz",
  13.    enabled INTEGER default 1,
  14.    redirect_to_id INT DEFAULT -1,
  15.    play_lengths_modified INT DEFAULT NULL) ;
  16. CREATE TABLE songs
  17.   (
  18.    game_id INTEGER,
  19.    song_number INTEGER NOT NULL,
  20.    song TEXT,
  21.    author TEXT,
  22.    copyright TEXT,
  23.    dumper TEXT,
  24.    length INTEGER,
  25.    intro_length INTEGER,
  26.    loop_length INTEGER,
  27.    play_length INTEGER,
  28.    play_order INTEGER default -1) ;
  29. CREATE TABLE tags
  30.   (
  31.    game_id INTEGER,
  32.    tag TEXT NOT NULL,
  33.    tag_type TEXT default "filename") ;
  34. CREATE INDEX gameid_index_songs ON songs(game_id) ;
  35. CREATE INDEX gameid_index_tag ON tags(game_id) ;
  36. CREATE UNIQUE INDEX sha1_index ON games(uncompressed_sha1) ;

• Seam carving

  9 juin 2010, par Mikko Koppanen — Imagick, PHP stuff

  Today I was reading trough the ImageMagick ChangeLog and noticed an interesting entry. “Add support for liquid rescaling”. I rushed to check the MagickWand API docs and there it was : MagickLiquidRescaleImage ! After about ten minutes of hacking the Imagick support was done. Needless to say ; I was excited

  For those who don’t know what seam carving is check the demo here. More detailed information about the algorithm can be found here : “Seam Carving for Content-Aware Image Resizing” by Shai Avidan and Ariel Shamir

  To use this functionality you need to install at least ImageMagick 6.3.8-2 and liblqr. Remember to pass –with-lqr to ImageMagick configuration line. You can get liblqr here : http://liblqr.wikidot.com/. The Imagick side of the functionality should appear in the CVS today if everything goes as planned.

  Here is a really simple example just to illustrate the results of the operation. The parameters might be far from optimal (didn’t do much testing yet). The original dimensions of image are 500×375 and the resulting size is 500×200.

  Update : the functionality is pending until license issues are solved.

  php

  < view plain text >

  1. < ?php
  2.  
  3. /* Create new object */
  4. $im = new Imagick( ’test.jpg’ ) ;
  5.  
  6. /* Scale down */
  7. $im->liquidRescaleImage( 500, 200, 3, 25 ) ;
  8.  
  9. /* Display */
  10. header( ’Content-Type : image/jpg’ ) ;
  11. echo $im ;
  12.  
  13.  ?>

  The original image by flickr/jennconspiracy

  

  And the result :

  

  Update. On kenrick’s request here is an image which is scaled down to 300×300