I do like the idea of the semantic markup used, but I can’t help but think that the ordering of the list items should be by tag weight rather than alphabetical.
The entire concept of your method is to make a tag cloud work for users who cannot see the font size variance whilst applying a solid semantic structure, yet you have semantically ordered the data by a totally different measure for those users than you have for those who see the tag cloud as intended.
I get that the content provides the context in terms of the “46 images tagged with” text, but it’s the use of the ordered list that is creating that dull nagging feeling in the back of my head (or maybe it’s down to the fact that we had our office christmas party last night…) as the ordering is clearly different for the two audiences.
Andy Hawkes
I do like the idea of the semantic markup used, but I can’t help but think that the ordering of the list items should be by tag weight rather than alphabetical.
The entire concept of your method is to make a tag cloud work for users who cannot see the font size variance whilst applying a solid semantic structure, yet you have semantically ordered the data by a totally different measure for those users than you have for those who see the tag cloud as intended.
I get that the content provides the context in terms of the “46 images tagged with” text, but it’s the use of the ordered list that is creating that dull nagging feeling in the back of my head (or maybe it’s down to the fact that we had our office christmas party last night…) as the ordering is clearly different for the two audiences.
Other than that, it’s a very simple approach.