Markup debates: rank priorities, code accordingly
Make love, not war.
Round one: logo vs. title inside <h1>
I like that The h1 Debate was created to tackle a very specific issue in HTML that affects standardistas and search marketers alike. It asks the question what should go inside an <h1> tag, a logo or page name?, then you cast a vote by tweeting.
I expect lot more discussion than that, though; a poll is not enough. How about answering this question: should the <h1> tag appear exactly once on a webpage? For the record, Molly Holzschlag disagrees:
@fineartdavid it is SEO folks who IMO started the “only 1 h1″. I see cases of multiple h1 use such as in projection media: h1=slide header 1
That’s comforting for me to hear, but it might not be for you. But don’t take it as gospel—unless you consider Molly as god! If you’re an SEO guy and have some other god, then by all means.
Round two: generic vs. semantic CSS classes
If you squint long enough, you'll see a dog. And a rabbit.
The h1 Debate reminds me of a recent post at Devlounge that condemns generic CSS classes. Sure, separation of content and presentation is supposed to make webpages more efficient and future-proof, but if you avoid using unsemantic names like “left”, “right”, “center” and end up with convoluted markup, are you really writing sensible HTML? You have a choice between being purist and being practical. As Simon Collinson says:
Leaving the h1 debate now. I do it my way for reasons I believe are common sense. The day there is one way to build websites I will quit.
Which one are you?
Round three: CSS vs. tables (again?)
This is exactly what iamelgringo is talking about.
And for the nth time this millennium, it’s CSS vs. tables all over again. Apparently the case against tables is not strong enough…
CSS is really cool. It is useful for a lot of things. The basic idea of separating content from presentation is sound. But when it comes to layout, the design of CSS is fundamentally flawed. Use tables instead.
…or maybe too strong:
So I don’t ever want to read how web designers who don’t use pure CSS in their layouts are lazy, stupid, don’t care about their craft, backwards or don’t bathe properly. Never again. People who post such things online are heretofore to be known as CSS Trolls and are to be banished from the internets for all time. Begone yea vile fiends!
I completely agree with Simon in that there is not one way to build websites. That’s the beauty of it. Now I won’t go so far as say that we should all go back to tables. I’m somewhat disappointed it’s still an issue but I understand where these people are coming from. Ron Garret is giving up, but iamelgringo is not, and is only pointing out that (1) the biggest websites out there still use tables and (2) the purists (“trolls”) give CSS a bad rap.
Now I won’t be swayed by the source code on Google.com as I don’t think it matters. Does it matter to you?
The winners? It’s your call
What are your priorities? Web standards? SEO? Efficiency? A clear conscience? Sanity? You don’t have to be a purist or a pragmatist all the time, and shifting gears on each project doesn’t mean a sellout either. List those down and rank them based on your needs and your client’s. Then code accordingly.
About tables used as layout: I think you know this very well, but the whole thing about not using them for layout it’s not for us (people who can read using eyes) but for people who “discover” internet in different way.
I agree that some CSS trolls are pointing their rights in inappropriate way. I was one of them. And yes, it was stupid. We must educate not extort.
I don’t think the source code is so important as long as it’s doing his job.
But if you look at this from the side of developer – it should be important for him and his team to make this code readable.
By David Horodecki on February 3, 2009 5:05 pm
Nice discussion.
I think you might read following articles too on the same subject.
1. Round one: logo vs. title inside
http://www.htmlremix.com/review/five-reason-why-you-should-put-logo-as-an-image
2.Round two: generic vs. semantic CSS classes
http://www.htmlremix.com/seo/microformats-class-names-and-future-seo
3.Round three: CSS vs. tables (again?)
You have nothing to read again.
Thanks
Rahnas
By rahnas on February 3, 2009 5:45 pm
[...] Markup debates: rank priorities, code accordingly: Zum Thema Prioritäten setzen. Webstandards? SEO? Effizienz? Reines Gewissen? Vernunft? (via CSS Globe) [...]
By Bithalter Webzeuglinks 005′09 | Webzeugkoffer Webdesign on February 3, 2009 8:38 pm
For me, the page title and not the site title should be an an h1, unless you are using HTML5 in which case there is no argument.
Non-sematic classes are fine if you will never reuse the html, but I use standard HTML whenever I start a site, irrespective of the end layout so calling something left just makes no sense. Classes are not identifying though so I don’t really think it matters one jot what anyone decides to call them.
I don’t consider myself a purist, but I think I am entitled to make some assumptions about anyone that uses tables for layout purposes. However bad somone thinks the CSS problems are they are all relatively easy to overcome. We know this because we have all had to do it. “cool” doesn’t come into it. There may not be one way to build a website but there is one way to mark it up and it is clearly defined.
By Andrew on February 3, 2009 9:25 pm
I agree with your question about the number of h1s on a page being more important. Have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.5.5, specifically:
“A heading element briefly describes the topic of the section it introduces.”
And the current (3rd Feb 2009) draft HTML5 spec. says:
“These elements define headers for their sections.”
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements
There’s more stuff on the HTML5 page about headers, but nowhere does it mention that you should only use one h1.
So, perhaps the W3C is a useful ‘god’ to quote in this instance! :)
By Stuart on February 4, 2009 6:19 am
[...] two different articles from two different sites posted around the same time. First, an article from wisdump.com titled “Markup Debates: rank priorities, code accordingly”. This article offers [...]
By The Design Community Killed the Community (or maybe we just get what we give) | Good Dog Creative on December 1, 2009 4:31 am
[...] we’re not spending time debating on the right way to code websites—CSS, tables, and all—we’re probably stressing over the details that go into the [...]
By Design debates: it’s time to throw curveballs | Wisdump on December 30, 2009 5:31 pm