Recherche avancée

Sur d’autres sites (11394)

• VP8 : a retrospective

  13 juillet 2010, par Dark Shikari — DCT, speed, VP8

  I’ve been working the past few weeks to help finish up the ffmpeg VP8 decoder, the first community implementation of On2′s VP8 video format. Now that I’ve written a thousand or two lines of assembly code and optimized a good bit of the C code, I’d like to look back at VP8 and comment on a variety of things — both good and bad — that slipped the net the first time, along with things that have changed since the time of that blog post.

  These are less-so issues related to compression — that issue has been beaten to death, particularly in MSU’s recent comparison, where x264 beat the crap out of VP8 and the VP8 developers pulled a Pinocchio in the developer comments. But that was expected and isn’t particularly interesting, so I won’t go into that. VP8 doesn’t have to be the best in the world in order to be useful.

  When the ffmpeg VP8 decoder is complete (just a few more asm functions to go), we’ll hopefully be able to post some benchmarks comparing it to libvpx.

  1. The spec, er, I mean, bitstream guide.

  Google has reneged on their claim that a spec existed at all and renamed it a “bitstream guide”. This is probably after it was found that — not merely was it incomplete — but at least a dozen places in the spec differed wildly from what was actually in their own encoder and decoder software ! The deblocking filter, motion vector clamping, probability tables, and many more parts simply disagreed flat-out with the spec. Fortunately, Ronald Bultje, one of the main authors of the ffmpeg VP8 decoder, is rather skilled at reverse-engineering, so we were able to put together a matching implementation regardless.

  Most of the differences aren’t particularly important — they don’t have a huge effect on compression or anything — but make it vastly more difficult to implement a “working” VP8 decoder, or for that matter, decide what “working” really is. For example, Google’s decoder will, if told to “swap the ALT and GOLDEN reference frames”, overwrite both with GOLDEN, because it first sets GOLDEN = ALT, and then sets ALT = GOLDEN. Is this a bug ? Or is this how it’s supposed to work ? It’s hard to tell — there isn’t a spec to say so. Google says that whatever libvpx does is right, but I doubt they intended this.

  I expect a spec will eventually be written, but it was a bit obnoxious of Google — both to the community and to their own developers — to release so early that they didn’t even have their own documentation ready.

  2. The TM intra prediction mode.

  One thing I glossed over in the original piece was that On2 had added an extra intra prediction mode to the standard batch that H.264 came with — they replaced Planar with “TM pred”. For i4x4, which didn’t have a Planar mode, they just added it without replacing an old one, resulting in a total of 10 modes to H.264′s 9. After understanding and writing assembly code for TM pred, I have to say that it is quite a cool idea. Here’s how it works :

  1. Let us take a block of size 4×4, 8×8, or 16×16.

  2. Define the pixels bordering the top of this block (starting from the left) as T[0], T[1], T[2]…

  3. Define the pixels bordering the left of this block (starting from the top) as L[0], L[1], L[2]…

  4. Define the pixel above the top-left of the block as TL.

  5. Predict every pixel <X,Y> in the block to be equal to clip3( T[X] + L[Y] – TL, 0, 255).

  It’s effectively a generalization of gradient prediction to the block level — predict each pixel based on the gradient between its top and left pixels, and the topleft. According to the VP8 devs, it’s chosen by the encoder quite a lot of the time, which isn’t surprising ; it seems like a pretty good idea. As just one more intra pred mode, it’s not going to do magic for compression, but it’s a cool idea and elegantly simple.

  3. Performance and the deblocking filter.
  

  On2 advertised for quite some that VP8′s goal was to be significantly faster to decode than H.264. When I saw the spec, I waited for the punchline, but apparently they were serious. There’s nothing wrong with being of similar speed or a bit slower — but I was rather confused as to the fact that their design didn’t match their stated goal at all. What apparently happened is they had multiple profiles of VP8 — high and low complexity profiles. They marketed the performance of the low complexity ones while touting the quality of the high complexity ones, a tad dishonest. More importantly though, practically nobody is using the low complexity modes, so anyone writing a decoder has to be prepared to handle the high complexity ones, which are the default.

  The primary time-eater here is the deblocking filter. VP8, being an H.264 derivative, has much the same problem as H.264 does in terms of deblocking — it spends an absurd amount of time there. As I write this post, we’re about to finish some of the deblocking filter asm code, but before it’s committed, up to 70% or more of total decoding time is spent in the deblocking filter ! Like H.264, it suffers from the 4×4 transform problem : a 4×4 transform requires a total of 8 length-16 and 8 length-8 loopfilter calls per macroblock, while Theora, with only an 8×8 transform, requires half that.

  This problem is aggravated in VP8 by the fact that the deblocking filter isn’t strength-adaptive ; if even one 4×4 block in a macroblock contains coefficients, every single edge has to be deblocked. Furthermore, the deblocking filter itself is quite complicated ; the “inner edge” filter is a bit more complex than H.264′s and the “macroblock edge” filter is vastly more complicated, having two entirely different codepaths chosen on a per-pixel basis. Of course, in SIMD, this means you have to do both and mask them together at the end.

  There’s nothing wrong with a good-but-slow deblocking filter. But given the amount of deblocking one needs to do in a 4×4-transform-based format, it might have been a better choice to make the filter simpler. It’s pretty difficult to beat H.264 on compression, but it’s certainly not hard to beat it on speed — and yet it seems VP8 missed a perfectly good chance to do so. Another option would have been to pick an 8×8 transform instead of 4×4, reducing the amount of deblocking by a factor of 2.

  And yes, there’s a simple filter available in the low complexity profile, but it doesn’t help if nobody uses it.

  4. Tree-based arithmetic coding.

  Binary arithmetic coding has become the standard entropy coding method for a wide variety of compressed formats, ranging from LZMA to VP6, H.264 and VP8. It’s simple, relatively fast compared to other arithmetic coding schemes, and easy to make adaptive. The problem with this is that you have to come up with a method for converting non-binary symbols into a list of binary symbols, and then choosing what probabilities to use to code each one. Here’s an example from H.264, the sub-partition mode symbol, which is either 8×8, 8×4, 4×8, or 4×4. encode_decision( context, bit ) writes a binary decision (bit) into a numbered context (context).

  8×8 : encode_decision( 21, 0 ) ;

  8×4 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 0 ) ;

  4×8 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 23, 1 ) ;

  4×4 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 23, 0 ) ;

  As can be seen, this is clearly like a Huffman tree. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could represent this in the form of an actual tree data structure instead of code ? On2 thought so — they designed a simple system in VP8 that allowed all binarization schemes in the entire format to be represented as simple tree data structures. This greatly reduces the complexity — not speed-wise, but implementation-wise — of the entropy coder. Personally, I quite like it.

  5. The inverse transform ordering.

  I should at some point write a post about common mistakes made in video formats that everyone keeps making. These are not issues that are patent worries or huge issues for compression — just stupid mistakes that are repeatedly made in new video formats, probably because someone just never asked the guy next to him “does this look stupid ?” before sticking it in the spec.

  One common mistake is the problem of transform ordering. Every sane 2D transform is “separable” — that is, it can be done by doing a 1D transform vertically and doing the 1D transform again horizontally (or vice versa). The original iDCT as used in JPEG, H.263, and MPEG-1/2/4 was an “idealized” iDCT — nobody had to use the exact same iDCT, theirs just had to give very close results to a reference implementation. This ended up resulting in a lot of practical problems. It was also slow ; the only way to get an accurate enough iDCT was to do all the intermediate math in 32-bit.

  Practically every modern format, accordingly, has specified an exact iDCT. This includes H.264, VC-1, RV40, Theora, VP8, and many more. Of course, with an exact iDCT comes an exact ordering — while the “real” iDCT can be done in any order, an exact iDCT usually requires an exact order. That is, it specifies horizontal and then vertical, or vertical and then horizontal.

  All of these transforms end up being implemented in SIMD. In SIMD, a vertical transform is generally the only option, so a transpose is added to the process instead of doing a horizontal transform. Accordingly, there are two ways to do it :

  1. Transpose, vertical transform, transpose, vertical transform.

  2. Vertical transform, transpose, vertical transform, transpose.

  These may seem to be equally good, but there’s one catch — if the transpose is done first, it can be completely eliminated by merging it into the coefficient decoding process. On many modern CPUs, particularly x86, transposes are very expensive, so eliminating one of the two gives a pretty significant speed benefit.

  H.264 did it way 1).

  VC-1 did it way 1).

  Theora (inherited from VP3) did it way 1).

  But no. VP8 has to do it way 2), where you can’t eliminate the transpose. Bah. It’s not a huge deal ; probably only 1-2% overall at most speed-wise, but it’s just a needless waste. What really bugs me is that VP3 got it right — why in the world did they screw it up this time around if they got it right beforehand ?

  RV40 is the other modern format I know that made this mistake.

  (NB : You can do transforms without a transpose, but it’s generally not worth it unless the intermediate needs 32-bit math, as in the case of the “real” iDCT.)

  6. Not supporting interlacing.

  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

  Interlacing was the scourge of H.264. It weaseled its way into every nook and cranny of the spec, making every decoder a thousand lines longer. H.264 even included a highly complicated — and effective — dedicated interlaced coding scheme, MBAFF. The mere existence of MBAFF, despite its usefulness for broadcasters and others still stuck in the analog age with their 1080i, 576i , and 480i content, was a blight upon the video format.

  VP8 has once and for all avoided it.

  And if anyone suggests adding interlaced support to the experimental VP8 branch, find a straightjacket and padded cell for them before they cause any real damage.

• VP8 : a retrospective

  13 juillet 2010, par Dark Shikari — DCT, VP8, speed

  I’ve been working the past few weeks to help finish up the ffmpeg VP8 decoder, the first community implementation of On2′s VP8 video format. Now that I’ve written a thousand or two lines of assembly code and optimized a good bit of the C code, I’d like to look back at VP8 and comment on a variety of things — both good and bad — that slipped the net the first time, along with things that have changed since the time of that blog post.

  These are less-so issues related to compression — that issue has been beaten to death, particularly in MSU’s recent comparison, where x264 beat the crap out of VP8 and the VP8 developers pulled a Pinocchio in the developer comments. But that was expected and isn’t particularly interesting, so I won’t go into that. VP8 doesn’t have to be the best in the world in order to be useful.

  When the ffmpeg VP8 decoder is complete (just a few more asm functions to go), we’ll hopefully be able to post some benchmarks comparing it to libvpx.

  1. The spec, er, I mean, bitstream guide.

  Google has reneged on their claim that a spec existed at all and renamed it a “bitstream guide”. This is probably after it was found that — not merely was it incomplete — but at least a dozen places in the spec differed wildly from what was actually in their own encoder and decoder software ! The deblocking filter, motion vector clamping, probability tables, and many more parts simply disagreed flat-out with the spec. Fortunately, Ronald Bultje, one of the main authors of the ffmpeg VP8 decoder, is rather skilled at reverse-engineering, so we were able to put together a matching implementation regardless.

  Most of the differences aren’t particularly important — they don’t have a huge effect on compression or anything — but make it vastly more difficult to implement a “working” VP8 decoder, or for that matter, decide what “working” really is. For example, Google’s decoder will, if told to “swap the ALT and GOLDEN reference frames”, overwrite both with GOLDEN, because it first sets GOLDEN = ALT, and then sets ALT = GOLDEN. Is this a bug ? Or is this how it’s supposed to work ? It’s hard to tell — there isn’t a spec to say so. Google says that whatever libvpx does is right, but I doubt they intended this.

  I expect a spec will eventually be written, but it was a bit obnoxious of Google — both to the community and to their own developers — to release so early that they didn’t even have their own documentation ready.

  2. The TM intra prediction mode.

  One thing I glossed over in the original piece was that On2 had added an extra intra prediction mode to the standard batch that H.264 came with — they replaced Planar with “TM pred”. For i4x4, which didn’t have a Planar mode, they just added it without replacing an old one, resulting in a total of 10 modes to H.264′s 9. After understanding and writing assembly code for TM pred, I have to say that it is quite a cool idea. Here’s how it works :

  1. Let us take a block of size 4×4, 8×8, or 16×16.

  2. Define the pixels bordering the top of this block (starting from the left) as T[0], T[1], T[2]…

  3. Define the pixels bordering the left of this block (starting from the top) as L[0], L[1], L[2]…

  4. Define the pixel above the top-left of the block as TL.

  5. Predict every pixel <X,Y> in the block to be equal to clip3( T[X] + L[Y] – TL, 0, 255).

  It’s effectively a generalization of gradient prediction to the block level — predict each pixel based on the gradient between its top and left pixels, and the topleft. According to the VP8 devs, it’s chosen by the encoder quite a lot of the time, which isn’t surprising ; it seems like a pretty good idea. As just one more intra pred mode, it’s not going to do magic for compression, but it’s a cool idea and elegantly simple.

  3. Performance and the deblocking filter.
  

  On2 advertised for quite some that VP8′s goal was to be significantly faster to decode than H.264. When I saw the spec, I waited for the punchline, but apparently they were serious. There’s nothing wrong with being of similar speed or a bit slower — but I was rather confused as to the fact that their design didn’t match their stated goal at all. What apparently happened is they had multiple profiles of VP8 — high and low complexity profiles. They marketed the performance of the low complexity ones while touting the quality of the high complexity ones, a tad dishonest. More importantly though, practically nobody is using the low complexity modes, so anyone writing a decoder has to be prepared to handle the high complexity ones, which are the default.

  The primary time-eater here is the deblocking filter. VP8, being an H.264 derivative, has much the same problem as H.264 does in terms of deblocking — it spends an absurd amount of time there. As I write this post, we’re about to finish some of the deblocking filter asm code, but before it’s committed, up to 70% or more of total decoding time is spent in the deblocking filter ! Like H.264, it suffers from the 4×4 transform problem : a 4×4 transform requires a total of 8 length-16 and 8 length-8 loopfilter calls per macroblock, while Theora, with only an 8×8 transform, requires half that.

  This problem is aggravated in VP8 by the fact that the deblocking filter isn’t strength-adaptive ; if even one 4×4 block in a macroblock contains coefficients, every single edge has to be deblocked. Furthermore, the deblocking filter itself is quite complicated ; the “inner edge” filter is a bit more complex than H.264′s and the “macroblock edge” filter is vastly more complicated, having two entirely different codepaths chosen on a per-pixel basis. Of course, in SIMD, this means you have to do both and mask them together at the end.

  There’s nothing wrong with a good-but-slow deblocking filter. But given the amount of deblocking one needs to do in a 4×4-transform-based format, it might have been a better choice to make the filter simpler. It’s pretty difficult to beat H.264 on compression, but it’s certainly not hard to beat it on speed — and yet it seems VP8 missed a perfectly good chance to do so. Another option would have been to pick an 8×8 transform instead of 4×4, reducing the amount of deblocking by a factor of 2.

  And yes, there’s a simple filter available in the low complexity profile, but it doesn’t help if nobody uses it.

  4. Tree-based arithmetic coding.

  Binary arithmetic coding has become the standard entropy coding method for a wide variety of compressed formats, ranging from LZMA to VP6, H.264 and VP8. It’s simple, relatively fast compared to other arithmetic coding schemes, and easy to make adaptive. The problem with this is that you have to come up with a method for converting non-binary symbols into a list of binary symbols, and then choosing what probabilities to use to code each one. Here’s an example from H.264, the sub-partition mode symbol, which is either 8×8, 8×4, 4×8, or 4×4. encode_decision( context, bit ) writes a binary decision (bit) into a numbered context (context).

  8×8 : encode_decision( 21, 0 ) ;

  8×4 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 0 ) ;

  4×8 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 23, 1 ) ;

  4×4 : encode_decision( 21, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 22, 1 ) ; encode_decision( 23, 0 ) ;

  As can be seen, this is clearly like a Huffman tree. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could represent this in the form of an actual tree data structure instead of code ? On2 thought so — they designed a simple system in VP8 that allowed all binarization schemes in the entire format to be represented as simple tree data structures. This greatly reduces the complexity — not speed-wise, but implementation-wise — of the entropy coder. Personally, I quite like it.

  5. The inverse transform ordering.

  I should at some point write a post about common mistakes made in video formats that everyone keeps making. These are not issues that are patent worries or huge issues for compression — just stupid mistakes that are repeatedly made in new video formats, probably because someone just never asked the guy next to him “does this look stupid ?” before sticking it in the spec.

  One common mistake is the problem of transform ordering. Every sane 2D transform is “separable” — that is, it can be done by doing a 1D transform vertically and doing the 1D transform again horizontally (or vice versa). The original iDCT as used in JPEG, H.263, and MPEG-1/2/4 was an “idealized” iDCT — nobody had to use the exact same iDCT, theirs just had to give very close results to a reference implementation. This ended up resulting in a lot of practical problems. It was also slow ; the only way to get an accurate enough iDCT was to do all the intermediate math in 32-bit.

  Practically every modern format, accordingly, has specified an exact iDCT. This includes H.264, VC-1, RV40, Theora, VP8, and many more. Of course, with an exact iDCT comes an exact ordering — while the “real” iDCT can be done in any order, an exact iDCT usually requires an exact order. That is, it specifies horizontal and then vertical, or vertical and then horizontal.

  All of these transforms end up being implemented in SIMD. In SIMD, a vertical transform is generally the only option, so a transpose is added to the process instead of doing a horizontal transform. Accordingly, there are two ways to do it :

  1. Transpose, vertical transform, transpose, vertical transform.

  2. Vertical transform, transpose, vertical transform, transpose.

  These may seem to be equally good, but there’s one catch — if the transpose is done first, it can be completely eliminated by merging it into the coefficient decoding process. On many modern CPUs, particularly x86, transposes are very expensive, so eliminating one of the two gives a pretty significant speed benefit.

  H.264 did it way 1).

  VC-1 did it way 1).

  Theora (inherited from VP3) did it way 1).

  But no. VP8 has to do it way 2), where you can’t eliminate the transpose. Bah. It’s not a huge deal ; probably only 1-2% overall at most speed-wise, but it’s just a needless waste. What really bugs me is that VP3 got it right — why in the world did they screw it up this time around if they got it right beforehand ?

  RV40 is the other modern format I know that made this mistake.

  (NB : You can do transforms without a transpose, but it’s generally not worth it unless the intermediate needs 32-bit math, as in the case of the “real” iDCT.)

  6. Not supporting interlacing.

  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

  Interlacing was the scourge of H.264. It weaseled its way into every nook and cranny of the spec, making every decoder a thousand lines longer. H.264 even included a highly complicated — and effective — dedicated interlaced coding scheme, MBAFF. The mere existence of MBAFF, despite its usefulness for broadcasters and others still stuck in the analog age with their 1080i, 576i , and 480i content, was a blight upon the video format.

  VP8 has once and for all avoided it.

  And if anyone suggests adding interlaced support to the experimental VP8 branch, find a straightjacket and padded cell for them before they cause any real damage.

• The use cases for a element in HTML

  27 novembre 2012, par silvia

  The W3C HTML WG and the WHATWG are currently discussing the introduction of a <main> element into HTML.

  The <main> element has been proposed by Steve Faulkner and is specified in a draft extension spec which is about to be accepted as a FPWD (first public working draft) by the W3C HTML WG. This implies that the W3C HTML WG will be looking for implementations and for feedback by implementers on this spec.

  I am supportive of the introduction of a <main> element into HTML. However, I believe that the current spec and use case list don’t make a good enough case for its introduction. Here are my thoughts.

  Main use case : accessibility

  In my opinion, the main use case for the introduction of <main> is accessibility.

  Like any other users, when blind users want to perceive a Web page/application, they need to have a quick means of grasping the content of a page. Since they cannot visually scan the layout and thus determine where the main content is, they use accessibility technology (AT) to find what is known as “landmarks”.

  “Landmarks” tell the user what semantic content is on a page : a header (such as a banner), a search box, a navigation menu, some asides (also called complementary content), a footer, …. and the most important part : the main content of the page. It is this main content that a blind user most often wants to skip to directly.

  In the days of HTML4, a hidden “skip to content” link at the beginning of the Web page was used as a means to help blind users access the main content.

  In the days of ARIA, the aria @role=main enables authors to avoid a hidden link and instead mark the element where the main content begins to allow direct access to the main content. This attribute is supported by AT – in particular screen readers – by making it part of the landmarks that AT can directly skip to.

  Both the hidden link and the ARIA @role=main approaches are, however, band aids : they are being used by those of us that make “finished” Web pages accessible by adding specific extra markup.

  A world where ARIA is not necessary and where accessibility developers would be out of a job because the normal markup that everyone writes already creates accessible Web sites/applications would be much preferable over the current world of band-aids.

  Therefore, to me, the primary use case for a <main> element is to achieve exactly this better world and not require specialized markup to tell a user (or a tool) where the main content on a page starts.

  An immediate effect would be that pages that have a <main> element will expose a “main” landmark to blind and vision-impaired users that will enable them to directly access that main content on the page without having to wade through other text on the page. Without a <main> element, this functionality can currently only be provided using heuristics to skip other semantic and structural elements and is for this reason not typically implemented in AT.

  Other use cases

  The <main> element is a semantic element not unlike other new semantic elements such as <header>, <footer>, <aside>, <article>, <nav>, or <section>. Thus, it can also serve other uses where the main content on a Web page/Web application needs to be identified.

  Data mining

  For data mining of Web content, the identification of the main content is one of the key challenges. Many scholarly articles have been published on this topic. This stackoverflow article references and suggests a multitude of approaches, but the accepted answer says “there’s no way to do this that’s guaranteed to work”. This is because Web pages are inherently complex and many <div>, <p>, <iframe> and other elements are used to provide markup for styling, notifications, ads, analytics and other use cases that are necessary to make a Web page complete, but don’t contribute to what a user consumes as semantically rich content. A <main> element will allow authors to pro-actively direct data mining tools to the main content.

  Search engines

  One particularly important “data mining” tool are search engines. They, too, have a hard time to identify which sections of a Web page are more important than others and employ many heuristics to do so, see e.g. this ACM article. Yet, they still disappoint with poor results pointing to findings of keywords in little relevant sections of a page rather than ranking Web pages higher where the keywords turn up in the main content area. A <main> element would be able to help search engines give text in main content areas a higher weight and prefer them over other areas of the Web page. It would be able to rank different Web pages depending on where on the page the search words are found. The <main> element will be an additional hint that search engines will digest.

  Visual focus

  On small devices, the display of Web pages designed for Desktop often causes confusion as to where the main content can be found and read, in particular when the text ends up being too small to be readable. It would be nice if browsers on small devices had a functionality (maybe a default setting) where Web pages would start being displayed as zoomed in on the main content. This could alleviate some of the headaches of responsive Web design, where the recommendation is to show high priority content as the first content. Right now this problem is addressed through stylesheets that re-layout the page differently depending on device, but again this is a band-aid solution. Explicit semantic markup of the main content can solve this problem more elegantly.

  Styling

  Finally, naturally, <main> would also be used to style the main content differently from others. You can e.g. replace a semantically meaningless <div id=”main”> with a semantically meaningful <main> where their position is identical. My analysis below shows, that this is not always the case, since oftentimes <div id=”main”> is used to group everything together that is not the header – in particular where there are multiple columns. Thus, the ease of styling a <main> element is only a positive side effect and not actually a real use case. It does make it easier, however, to adapt the style of the main content e.g. with media queries.

  Proposed alternative solutions

  It has been proposed that existing markup serves to satisfy the use cases that <main> has been proposed for. Let’s analyse these on some of the most popular Web sites. First let’s list the propsed algorithms.

  Proposed solution No 1 : Scooby-Doo

  On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote :
  | The main content is whatever content isn’t
  | marked up as not being main content (anything not marked up with <header>,
  | <aside>, <nav>, etc).
  

  This implies that the first element that is not a <header>, <aside>, <nav>, or <footer> will be the element that we want to give to a blind user as the location where they should start reading. The algorithm is implemented in https://gist.github.com/4032962.

  Proposed solution No 2 : First article element

  On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote :
  | On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ian Yang wrote :
  | >
  | > That’s a good idea. We really need an element to wrap all the <p>s,
  | > <ul>s, <ol>s, <figure>s, <table>s ... etc of a blog post.
  |
  | That’s called <article>.
  

  This approach identifies the first <article> element on the page as containing the main content. Here’s the algorithm for this approach.

  Proposed solution No 3 : An example heuristic approach

  The readability plugin has been developed to make Web pages readable by essentially removing all the non-main content from a page. An early source of readability is available. This demonstrates what a heuristic approach can perform.

  Analysing alternative solutions

  Comparison

  I’ve picked 4 typical Websites (top on Alexa) to analyse how these three different approaches fare. Ideally, I’d like to simply apply the above three scripts and compare pictures. However, since the semantic HTML5 elements <header>, <aside>, <nav>, and <footer> are not actually used by any of these Web sites, I don’t actually have this choice.

  So, instead, I decided to make some assumptions of where these semantic elements would be used and what the outcome of applying the first two algorithms would be. I can then compare it to the third, which is a product so we can take screenshots.

  Google.com

  http://google.com – search for “Scooby Doo”.

  The search results page would likely be built with :

  • a <nav> menu for the Google bar
  • a <header> for the search bar
  • another <header> for the login section
  • another <nav> menu for the search types
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • a <div> for the app bar with the search number
  • a few <aside>s for the left and right column
  • a set of <article>s for the search results

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element before the app bar in this case. Interestingly, there is a <div @id=main> already in the current Google results page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, there are a nav bar and two asides in this div, which clearly should not be part of the “main content”. Google actually placed a @role=main on a different element, namely the one that encapsulates all the search results.

  “First Article” would find the first search result as the “main content”. While not quite the same as what Google intended – namely all search results – it is close enough to be useful.

  The “readability” result is interesting, since it is not able to identify the main text on the page. It is actually aware of this problem and brings a warning before displaying this page :

  

  Facebook.com

  https://facebook.com

  A user page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search and login bar
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • an <aside> for the left column
  • a <div> to contain the center and right column
  • an <aside> for the right column
  • a <header> to contain the center column “megaphone”
  • a <div> for the status posting
  • a set of <article>s for the home stream

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains all three columns. It’s actually a <div @id=content> already in the current Facebook user page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, Facebook selected a different element to place the @role=main : the center column.

  “First Article” would find the first news item in the home stream. This is clearly not what Facebook intended, since they placed the @role=main on the center column, above the first blog post’s title. “First Article” would miss that title and the status posting.

  The “readability” result again disappoints but warns that it failed :

  

  YouTube.com

  http://youtube.com

  A video page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search and login bar
  • a <nav> for the menu
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • a <header> for the video title and channel links
  • a <div> to contain the video with controls
  • a <div> to contain the center and right column
  • an <aside> for the right column with an <article> per related video
  • an <aside> for the information below the video
  • a <article> per comment below the video

  “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains the rest of the page. It’s actually a <div @id=content> already in the current YouTube video page, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick. However, YouTube’s related videos and comments are unlikely to be what the user would regard as “main content” – it’s the video they are after, which generously has a <div id=watch-player>.

  “First Article” would find the first related video or comment in the home stream. This is clearly not what YouTube intends.

  The “readability” result is not quite as unusable, but still very bare :

  

  Wikipedia.com

  http://wikipedia.com (“Overscan” page)

  A Wikipedia page would likely be built with :

  • a <header> bar for the search, login and menu items
  • a <div> to contain the rest of the page
  • an &ls; article> with title and lots of text
  • <article> an <aside> with the table of contents
  • several <aside>s for the left column

  Good news : “Scooby Doo” would find the first element after the headers as the “main content”. This is the element that contains the rest of the page. It’s actually a <div id=”content” role=”main”> element on Wikipedia, which “Scooby Doo” would likely also pick.

  “First Article” would find the title and text of the main element on the page, but it would also include an <aside>.

  The “readability” result is also in agreement.

  

  Results

  In the following table we have summarised the results for the experiments :

  Site	Scooby-Doo	First article	Readability
  Google.com	FAIL	SUCCESS	FAIL
  Facebook.com	FAIL	FAIL	FAIL
  YouTube.com	FAIL	FAIL	FAIL
  Wikipedia.com	SUCCESS	SUCCESS	SUCCESS

  Clearly, Wikipedia is the prime example of a site where even the simple approaches find it easy to determine the main content on the page. WordPress blogs are similarly successful. Almost any other site, including news sites, social networks and search engine sites are petty hopeless with the proposed approaches, because there are too many elements that are used for layout or other purposes (notifications, hidden areas) such that the pre-determined list of semantic elements that are available simply don’t suffice to mark up a Web page/application completely.

  Conclusion

  It seems that in general it is impossible to determine which element(s) on a Web page should be the “main” piece of content that accessibility tools jump to when requested, that a search engine should put their focus on, or that should be highlighted to a general user to read. It would be very useful if the author of the Web page would provide a hint through a <main> element where that main content is to be found.

  I think that the <main> element becomes particularly useful when combined with a default keyboard shortcut in browsers as proposed by Steve : we may actually find that non-accessibility users will also start making use of this shortcut, e.g. to get to videos on YouTube pages directly without having to tab over search boxes and other interactive elements, etc. Worthwhile markup indeed.