W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 1998

Any browser OBJECT was: Re: Guidelines - some comments

From: <nir.dagan@econ.upf.es>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:32:43 +0100
Message-Id: <H0000e2200cdecb0@MHS>
TO: asgilman@access.digex.net
CC: charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
First, old broswers show the content of the OBJECT. That's 
another reason to use the content rather than the title attribute
for alternative content.

The problems start with those broswers that claim to support OBJECT.
Bugs include:

* images are shown when images are turned off. (MSIE4.x)
* movies are loaded when the browser has no appropriete plugin. (Communicator)
* images are always shown in their intristic size in a "frame" with 
   scroll bars of the specified size. (Explorer 4.x)
* Links (and image maps) don't work. (Explorer 4.x)
(Communicator shows content when the object is an image)
* Neither the object or its content is rendered 
  when type or height or width are not specified. (Explorer and 
  Communicator)
 * supported MIME types by the browser are not recognized 
   in OBJECT and content is shown instead. (Communicator with 
   HTML or plain text)

Provisional solutions:
* for images and image maps, use IMG
* for Java applets use APPLET

The following is informative, not normative:
* for movies etc. use EMBED /NOEMBED
* for HTML documents use:
 <IFRAME> <!-- for MSIE, supported also by versions 3.x --> 
 <LAYER src=..></LAYER> <!-- for Communicator -->
 <NOLAYER>alternative content</NOLAYER> <!-- for normal browsers -->
 </IFRAME>
(Note: you cannot interchange nesting of LAYER and IFRAME)

Regards,
Nir.

> Do we need to talk about this in the telephone call?
> 
> From the meeting in Peterborough I got the idea that OBJECT is
> processed in incompatible ways in existing browsers.  In ways so
> there is no middle ground left, there is no "anybrowser" way to
> write an OBJECT.
> 
> Al
> 
> to follow up on what Charles McCathieNevile said:
> > From w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org  Wed Oct 28 11:10:20 1998
> > Resent-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:00:31 -0500 (EST)
> > Resent-Message-Id: <199810281600.LAA24343@www19.w3.org>
> > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 02:56:47 +1100 (EST)
> > From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@srl.rmit.EDU.AU>
> > X-Sender: charlesn@sunrise
> > To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981029023848.15253D-100000@sunrise>
> > Subject: Guidelines - some comments
> > Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> archive/latest/942
> > X-Loop: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Sender: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > Precedence: list
> 
> > A.1 technique 7 - for OBJECT, use one of the many ways to provide 
> > alternative content.
> > 
> > I think we should be pushing the use of the content of an OBJECT element, 
> > as this provides content to any browser. In addition, the UA group 
> > currently have a guideline which says that the content of an OBJECT must 
> > be available to a user (whether or not the OBJECT is rendered) by some 
> > means. The use of TITLE, etc, as a primiary means of conveying 
> > alternatives requires more of the browsers, and makes life more 
> > complicated, since the next thing that will be required in UA is an 
> > algorithm for determining which things to make available how (there 
> > really are only a limited number of simple techniques).
> > 
> > A.4 techniques 2 and 3 - providing audio description of video.
> > 
> > I think we need to make a stronger statement here about providing a text 
> > equivalent (which should be a P1) and that text equivalent in audio 
> > format, (which should be P2) by rearranging the priorities and the order 
> > of the techniques.
> > 
> > A.10 Use accessible user interefaces for objects with their own interface
> > 
> > use SMIL for audio/video? (as another technique)
> > 
> > A.11 Input device independence
> > 
> > this would be where my recent barrow about event triggering goes I guess...
> > 
> > Section C - good design
> > 
> > Should the front-loading guideline refer back to the proper use of 
> > headers etc in section A?
> > 
> > Charles McCathieNevile
> > 
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 1998 16:33:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT