17

Currently the dialogue of TeXtalk is formatted by <strong> for the speaker and <p> to separate lines. Here is an example from the interview with Yiannis Lazarides:

Current format of TeXtalk

This format may be confusing when a speaker is listed with multiple paragraphs in that it is not obvious who says what.

I suggest to format the dialogue as a definition list, i.e. as <dl> (the HTML similar of the description environment). The screenshot below is an example of such formatting. Note this makes it very clear which speaker a paragraph belongs to even if there are multiple paragraphs. Also note that the colon after the speaker in the old format is no longer needed.

Suggested format for TeXtalk

A less obvious advantage of this format is that it is semantically more correct in that a definition, <dd>, following a term, <dt>, belongs to it in a sense, e.g. every <dd> directly following a <dt>Paulo</dt> is something said by Paulo.

<dl>
  <dt>Paulo</dt>
  <dd>
    <p>Indeed. I remember one of your answers where you said something
    like “if typographical rules can be deduced, we can incorporate
    them”. It&#8217;s very challenging.</p>

    <p>Speaking of typography, you
    are <a href="http://tex.stackexchange.com/badges/152/typography">the
    first user to earn the <code>typography</code> badge</a>! How did
    you become so acquainted with it? <code>:)</code></p>
  </dd>

  <dt>Yiannis</dt>
  <dd>
    <p>I was not aware I was the first user. I think it was just a
    miracle that I was the first user to get it. <code>;)</code></p>

    <p>I always had an interest in it. I read some of Knuth&#8217;s
    writings and one day it struck me. What he did was to study all
    the maths publications and deduce some typographical rules. I am
    currently doing the same with images and layouts (he conveniently
    missed this otherwise he would have still been busy with
    TeX). Small things like don&#8217;t put a small image on a page on
    its own can make a big difference.</p>

    <p>He also left color out. Color is very difficult to handle
    correctly from a typography point of view.</p>
  </dd>
</dl>

With the old formatting the owner of multiple paragraphs is not as clear.

<p><strong>Paulo:</strong> Indeed. I remember one of your answers
where you said something like “if typographical rules can be deduced,
we can incorporate them”. It&#8217;s very challenging.</p>

<p>Speaking of typography, you are <a
href="http://tex.stackexchange.com/badges/152/typography">the first
user to earn the <code>typography</code> badge</a>! How did you become
so acquainted with it? <code>:)</code></p>

<p><strong></strong><strong>Yiannis:</strong> I was not aware I was
the first user. I think it was just a miracle that I was the first
user to get it. <code>;)</code></p>

<p>I always had an interest in it. I read some of Knuth&#8217;s
writings and one day it struck me. What he did was to study all the
maths publications and deduce some typographical rules. I am currently
doing the same with images and layouts (he conveniently missed this
otherwise he would have still been busy with TeX). Small things like
don&#8217;t put a small image on a page on its own can make a big
difference.</p>

<p>He also left color out. Color is very difficult to handle correctly
from a typography point of view.</p>

One thing I left out above is that to achieve the suggested format one need to style the relevant <dt> tags as bold. Globally this can be done by something like:

dl dt {
    font-weight: bold;
}
6

This should work just fine now, provided you enter the HTML into the editor's HTML tab - if you try to use the Visual editor on a post containing a definition list, WordPress may mangle embedded paragraphs. Even if you don't touch the list itself while editing. YMMV, but for best results paste it in when in HTML-mode and leave it that way.

What a definition list should look like on tex.se now

  • Thank you very very much! :) – Paulo Cereda Jun 14 '12 at 22:14
12

It's really a great idea. :)

The TeXtalk series was heavily influenced by the TUG Interview Corner, so I tried to mimic their layout. Besides, I've never been an interviewer before. :)

The dl element is XHTML valid and, as Yiannis mentioned in his answer, it's more semantic and accessible. I checked the blog interface and the tag is not blacklisted, so we can use it.

I'll wait a few more votes in the main question and them "implement" this feature request. It might take a while for me to format all the interviews, mainly because IMHO our blog interface is not so friendly at all. I have no problem editing the HTML code directly, but it's quite a pain. I might write a tool to convert the "chat room interviews" into "blog interviews", since I'm lazy I might forget some tags in the process. :)

That said, I should mention that we are honoured to have two new additions to the blog team: lockstep and Alan Munn. Thank you guys!

Update: I'm sorry to tell this, but the deployment might take a while.

I've managed to write a conversion script for helping us with this new interview dialogue format. Unfortunately, our blog CSS does not handle these tags as it should:


Cool image


IMHO the elements are too tight. Besides, the paragraphs were removed by our blog publishing system, even though I explicitly added them. Note that paragraphs are still valid elements in this context.

We might have a word with the SO staff to help us fixing some technical issues, as well as some small annoyances. :)

When we reach a steady state, we will surely deploy this new formatting pattern. I'll update this answer accordingly.

Update 2: Thanks to the great SO staff, we've now deployed the new dialogue format for TeXtalk. :)

  • For converting existing posts it might be easiest to copy the content to a capable editor and do some search and replace. If you want help with a script to convert chat log to blog post format you could make a meta post to get help from the community. – N.N. Apr 1 '12 at 12:57
  • 1
    For reference on the problems on implementing this see chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/41/conversation/…. – N.N. Apr 1 '12 at 14:32
7

You are correct and is also semantically better to use a definition list; it is also better from an accessibility point of view. It never gave me any trouble though to understand the interviews.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .