search

symphonycms / factory

A design framework for the Symphony Network
http://symphonycms.github.com/factory/
Other
17 stars 6 forks source link

Basic markup #3

Closed nilshoerrmann closed 11 years ago

nilshoerrmann commented 12 years ago

Continuing the discussion on commit 5326dbd:

@nilshoerrmann:

I have been thinking about your outline again. There is one structural problem I see: in your markup, the network is subordinated to the current site (extensions, xPathr etc.). But actually, the network is a meta structure that should reside besides the current site in my eyes. If we think of a nested structure, the current page would have to be a child of the network and not the other way around – but that doesn't make much sense as we are not browsing the network but a specific network site of it (a complex satellited system we have).

@DavidOliver:

Yes, that was one of the things I was thinking could be improved, and I wondered if an aside would be suitable. But I'm not sure; I'll need to read the current draft on that again.

If aside turns out not to be suitable and no-one can think of a better way, I suggest the network being subordinate to the current site is better than the other way around.

An aside seems to be suitable in our situation, see http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/aside#Example_A

Related commits:

/cc @andrewminton, @johannahoerrmann

simoneeconomo commented 12 years ago

If we think of a nested structure, the current page would have to be a child of the network and not the other way around – but that doesn't make much sense as we are not browsing the network but a specific network site of it (a complex satellited system we have).

From my point of view outlines should not span a whole network. It makes sense to build a hierarchy of sections with the current website structure in mind, but I wonder if having each outline start with the same item every time (that is, "Symphony Network") might actually be confusing for machines -- I'm also a promoter of the "Websites' first heading should be the page title, not the website's name!" campaign. There could be issues related to both accessibility and indexing, but I can't tell for sure so if this concerns us I'd suggest a little research.

I'd stick with aside here: it looks appropriate to me and its definition seems to comply with the idea of a site switcher. However, if both solutions are harmless, let's just pick the one that looks more widely accepted and move on to the real issues (markup battles last long!)