Visual Display IS Content (i)
As should be clear from my last few posts, I am a big fan of what has come to called “the semantic Web.” Part of this movement is about making it easier for machines (computers, or computer software) to read and process Web pages. The other part is about making it easier for people to read and process Web pages.
Who could argue with either aim?
In my post of the 18th November, however, I mentioned that I had “a few caveats.” Let me explain with reference to some recommendations made by Andy Clarke.
Andy is the author of a really stimulating, detailed and up-to-date book on CSS-based Web design: Transcending CSS, published by New Riders earlier this year. He has a Web site about himself and his studio. There is also a site about the book.
Andy argues for a design work flow that proceeds like this:
- Gather the content.
- Mark it up meaningfully, i.e., in the order that makes most sense, and with HTML tags inspired by the content itself, and not by thoughts of visual presentation.
- Use a style sheet to display the final visual page.
My major quarrel with this is that it makes too sharp a distinction between “content” and “visual display.” I would argue that all the visual details of a Web page convey a message—separately, and in various combinations. One trivial obvious example: it may be good for a property site to look cluttered, and difficult to take in at a glance. The clutter conveys the message, “There’s such a lot of stuff here you may well find the property you’re looking for.” In other words, it is itself (part of) the content.
I’ll give a lot more examples in the second part of this post. But first I’d like to mention my minor quarrel with Andy’s proposed work flow. Given that content includes display, there’s no reason why display shouldn’t come first in time, and the page elements created second, to fit the display. Otherwise, it’s a bit like ruling that the words of a song have to come before the music. I admit that many of the world’s greatest songs have been created this way. But a huge number—of masterpieces, too—have been created the other way round. A compose writes a tune, and then a lyricist supplies words to fit the tune.
I would hate this possibility to be ruled out for Web sites.