As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm on mobile now, and I cannot find the post I recently read which advises not to use a div for the functionality of a button. Perhaps the philosophy is well enough agreed upon that it doesn't matter.
It seems divs are a bit easier to style than <button> type (which was recommended in the answer i unfortunately cannot refer to). Even if that's not true, what is the disadvantage to using a div as a button?
Thanks!
<div> has little or no semantic meaning. It's just a generic container.
<a>, <button>, or <input type=button> all make it much more clear what the thing actually is, what it's supposed to do, etc.
This has several advantages:
Accessibility: Chances of a screen reader or whatever knowing what to do with an <a> is much greater than it managing to figure out that your <div> is actually a way to communicate back to the web server or whatever.
User interface advantages: If a user is used to tabbing through clickable elements or whatever, their browser is far more likely to do the right thing if you use an element that clearly indicates that it's there for the user to click/press/whatever. If you use <div>, then the browser might not highlight it or do whatever it normally does to tell the person that they can click it.
You get the clickability for free, rather than having to attach an onclick or whatever. With a <div>, there's probably no way to make it work without JavaScript. With the other elements, there's at least a hope (especially with <a>).
I'm probably leaving out a ton of other things that I just never thought about and maybe the above aren't the best examples, but I suspect you get the idea.
<div> does not support the tabindex attribute. So keyboard users are at a disadvantage.
Additionally, webpage optimizers (eg. Google on mobile) would be less likely to strip out an <input>.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I understand the whole presentation vs relation argument that underlies the removal of as a tag from the HTML spec, however:
Some browsers still require/recognize this tag.
There are various issues with the (various) alternatives.
There are some arguable relational uses of the word 'center', as in that this element is to be considered central with respect to its neighbors, with no actual presentational meaning included (although a default CSS styling could be applied).
Would this line of reasoning be enough to bring back into the HTML standard as both a functional and practical way of doing things?
Apologies in advance if this question is provactive, one of my first SO questions.
To answer the core question here:
What would it take to get '' re-admitted to the HTML standard?
I think it would take a lot.
The thing is this: as it stands, <center> is very much a layout tag. Anything that changes the tag sufficiently to bring it back into contention would simultaneously alter its usage so much that it would be better for backward compatibility to have an entirely new tag instead.
Centering of elements and/or text can be done in CSS with well-established techniques, and with no compatibility issues, even in older browsers, so there's no need for a <center> tag either, any more than there is for <b> or <i> tags.
But I think the main point is that regardless of any merit or lack of merit in the <center> tag, the team responsible for developing the HTML spec have made the decision to deprecate it, and I can't imagine any line of thinking that would change their mind.
Your may be asking 'why not?', but I think their response would be 'why?'. And I don't think there's an answer you could give to that which would be sufficient to sway them.
"There are some arguable relational uses of the word 'center', as in that this element is to be considered central with respect to its neighbors"
This is very abstract semantics which doesn't really have any role in a document. I can't see it being useful. It's not even clear that 'center' is a good term for it - <focus> sounds more the point you are trying to make.
On the larger point. It would need a clear semantic meaning that is relevant to the actual structure of most content on the web. Hence the push for tags like <video>, <navigation> and <email>.
The key question you need to answer is "What is the problem that needs to be solved?" That is the starting point for all new or resurrected elements. If the problem is presentational, then its fix would be in CSS, not HTML. It is expected that you would provide data gathered from real world web pages to demonstrate the reality of the problem.
Once the problem has been identified, and it has been deemed that an appropriate solution is required and should be in HTML, and that there is no existing solution in HTML, you can contribute to the process to decide what the best solution to the problem is.
If you could gain agreement that adding the <center> element was the best solution to the problem, then it would likely be added to HTML.
Browsers handle many deprecated tags as a courtesy, not because the devs necessarily believe they should be in the spec
Such as?
This would fundamentally change the use of the tag, from formatting to presentation structure, no?
I think the center-tag is an element meant for styling and thus should be handled with CSS. It doesn't add semantics to the page.
See this SO-question
On a webpage, what exactly would a "" be?
Considering that the tags should describe what the content is. This tag only tells you where it is located on the page rather than anything about itself.
To bring back this tag, there would have to be a very compelling reason why to describe a pages content as center.
The reason that this tag is not valid in HTML5 is that they want to remove most of the styling tags and attributes so that styling will be only by CSS, also removed <font>, the align attribute, bgcolor attribute and some more design related things.
you can center elements in css with "margin: 0px auto".
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
For quite some time, I have been using "deprecated" HTML tags such as b, i, u in my HTML for projects where optimization is important. I would often find code like:
<div class="WrapperName">
<div class="ItemElementName">
</div>
</div>
A while back (some odd years) I noticed that Google used tags like the ones I mentioned in the search listings, obviously to optimize the output. So my example above could look like this:
<b>
<u>
</u>
</b>
I liked this and have been using it regularly ever since. I mainly use the tags in parts of the code that don't define the lay-out, but things like parts of a repeated container, because that's where the biggest win is to be made. Using CSS I unset the default properties of the elements to make them "clean" elements.
Even though in modern browsers you can use any tag name you like and it will work, I chose these ones because they work in older (IE) browsers so that I don't need to register them with the browser.
Is there any real objection against this way of working? The tags as they were are already deprecated (so don't add any specific value - like what I want) and they are short and work in all browsers..
Elements such as <b>, <i> an <u> are not deprecated, their meanings have just changed, so carry on using them.
(I have linked each one above to it's entry in the W3C HTML5 specification)
It is irrelevant to the basic question whether some element is deprecated or not. You are effectively asking about the use of HTML tags as independent of their defined meaning, and even against their defined meaning, simply because the tags are short and you expect to override their default styling and impose your own. There are several arguments against such usage. They are not decisive against all kinds of use, but they make the use highly questionable on web pages:
Some elements have defined or actual functionality that you might be unable to override. For example, an <input> element takes user input and participates in tabbing order. This might not apply to the single-letter tags you have in your mind, but it’s worth noting as a general point about “free” use of tags.
Elements may have default rendering that you cannot (completely) override in (all) browsers. Especially older browsers may use rendering routines (e.g. for form fields) that are immune to CSS. This, too, might not apply to single-lette tags.
CSS is ultimately just presentational suggestions that may be ignored or overridden by a multitude of reasons and in a multitude of ways; see CSS Caveats.
Search engines will handle tags their ways. For example, they may take b element contents as carrying more relative weight than other texts on the same page.
Maintenance of a page using tags that way gets complicated, especially if people not familiar with the idea will need to take it over.
It might be better to use undefined tags like <c>, <d>, <e> etc., even though you would have to “register” them with IE (it’s just one document.createElement() per tag name). But many of the counterarguments would still apply (and some browser might some day define <c> with some surprising meaning).
b, i, and u are deprecated, and you should not make up your own tag names either since the specification does not allow that. Use the strong tag for things you want to emphasize and use span for the rest. span has the specific purpose of allowing you use it for applying whatever CSS you like to some text.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I want to design a website with a bunch of content, and I want that content to be printer friendly. So basically just the content. No navigation, no ads, no nothing. I'm planning on creating two stylesheets, one for printer and one for screen.
Q1: Is this the best way?
Q2: Is there anything I should keep in mind while designing this site? Should I use width:960px; or would a width:95%; approach be better?
Q3: What font size is the best on print?
Q4: Is a serif or san-serif font better for print?
Loads of questions, please help :).
Q1: I would use two CSS files as you propose. That way the HTML is reused and you don't have to manage extra resources other than the print CSS style.
Q2: I would use relative units like percentage or EMs rather than pixels. (How would you expect a pixel to relate to the print?) Remember that the page might not be printed on an A4 page, could be A3, A5 - anything. For widths I usually prefer EMs as usually the best length for a line of text is between 60 to 80 characters (60em to 80ems). Longer and the eye strains to follow the text. Shorter and you end up with not enough space for longer words and you get undesired word-wrapping. Relative units will make the page scale to whatever format it's printed to. (Which is why I also recommend relative units for screen as well.)
Q3: Assuming an A4 page, I'd go for nothing less than 10pt, - maybe 12pt. Depending on your content. The best way is to print out a test and judge for yourself how well it reads.
Q4: It is generally said that sans-serif fonts works best on screen - because the serifs are hard to represent well on the low resolution of (current) monitors. Whereas serif fonts are generally considered to be better for print.
This is an interesting area though and there are some disputes - which you can quickly find if you dig up some reading on the matter. What I suggested is what the general accepted convention is.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Applying styles to <form> tag is:
a) a good practice, it decreases the count of elements on a page and makes code clear
b) a bad practice because of semantics, use other elements instead, div is for style, form is for forms
c) don't ask silly questions and focus on real job!
d) none of the above
Style the form if that makes life easier for you. It is not against semantics if you do it.
a - Decreasing the amount of elements is not necessarily a good practice. If creating more elements will make your layout more readable/understandable then go ahead.
b - Divs are not for styling, they are there to divide sections in the document
c - You should worry about semantics. This is not a silly question.
a) Yes.
b) No. Div is a generic element. It is not for "style" it is for "when nothing else describes the semantics".
A and C. Simple way checking for good answer is: Write a code and validate it with validator.
Since semantics are seperate from style, applying style to a form has no semantic consequences. Go right ahead and style a form if you like, it makes no difference to the semantic meaning of the page.
In my personal experience, (a) is especially true because:
You will be reducing the overall filesize of your page, with no real disadvantage (especially if you have multiple forms and run into this a lot).
You will be reducing the amount of confusion when you have to go back to edit this style in the future (where someone may have the same question as you).
You will be reducing the ambiguity as to where certain styles come from (e.g. this form has too large of a top margin. Is that coming from the margin on the <div> or the margin on the <form>?)
You will be reducing the possibility of introducing bugs or cross-browser quirks, stemming from browsers not implementing the same default styles on all elements (in this case, the <form> element).
While I suppose one could argue that (b) is a "problem" in theory (and should therefore be avoided), it will never be a "problem" in practice. But as you can see above, wrapping it in a <div> can certainly be a problem in practice.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Well it's evil, fine.
But what's evil in it?
all browsers support it?
which aspx asp.net controls can I not use in this tag?
Why not use the tag?
all browser support it?
No, although support is annoyingly broad.
can/ cannot use what controls in the taag
Can you rephrase this. I think I can decrypt the meaning of 'taag', but the words don't form a sentence.
why not to use the tag?
First and foremost, on a purely practical front — it makes text scroll.
Scrolling text is an excellent way to display a large amount of information in a small place, non-interactively. This makes it rather good for things like the "What stations this train will stop at" display that I get to look at on my commute.
A web page, however, is typically viewed in a relatively large display by a single person, who has a mouse, trackpad or other way to indicate when they have finished reading whatever is displayed. This means they do not have to wait for the start of the text, the text will not move faster then they can read properly, and the text will not move more slowly then they are comfortable with. Additionally, if they are trying to read something else that is near the scrolling text, they won't be constantly distracted by the movement in the corner of their eye.
Aside from that. It isn't yet standardized, and the closest it appears it will ever come is to be marked as obsolete by HTML 5.
It's annoying.
It's not standard.
Not all browsers support it.
It's annoying.
The reasons against using marquee come mostly from usability and design reasons. It draws the user's attention needlessly, makes the text harder to read, and makes your site look sloppy.