W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: Navigation bars with dynamic content

From: SHARPE, Ian <Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:52:06 -0000
Message-ID: <FA94B04D5981D211B86800A0C9EA2841A349C2@cames1.sema.co.uk>
To: "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Thanks Jim for putting me straight regarding my UA problem. I don't suppose
anyone has a complete CSS2 stylesheet I could use please or can point me in
the direction of one? There must be some out there but I haven't googled one
up yet, just tutorials? It would save me a massive amount of time and be
very much appreciated.

Regarding these menus though, are we saying that they are accessible then
provided they are used correctly and you use a non-text based browser? I'll
have to wait until I get my stylesheet sorted out before I pass judgement
myself.

Oh, and regarding the disclaimer. Many kind people have explained it's
pointlessness since I have joined this list. I have already informed my
company of the issue and was told that this would mean that it would have to
be removed from everyones emails since it is added at our gateway, a good
thing you might think.   But with 120,000 people world wide distributed over
a complex organisational structure you can imagine the political
implications. I am awaiting an official response but suspect it is not high
on their priority list. I apologise to you all now for the headache this
disclaimer causes. Using another account is not an option so until the
politcal wheels of change start rolling I affraid I'm stuck with it so
please bare with me. Sorry!!

Cheers
Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: David Woolley [mailto:david@djwhome.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 30 January 2002 22:26
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Navigation bars with dynamic content


> It may be accessible, but it is certainly not very usable, round trips
> are very expensive, lots of visible links are intimidating, a 10 second

If the actual roundtrip penalty is anything like this, even for slow
modem users, there is something wrong with the site.  Cleanly designed
text pages should display the first line of useful output in about
2 seconds++, even if not cached.  If the page is not cached, the user 
presumably needs to start reading, or at least skimming, from that
first line, and if they know the layout, it is probably already cached.

If you don't get useful output in that time, you've either got an 
overloaded server or are sending loads of scripts and verbose sidebars, or
are using tables and have failed to make them display incrementally.

If most of the time is the actual menu, that is time that was not spent
in sending the main page, making that page more responsive.

> the 200% increase in bandwidth IMO.  You may be happy with that level of

For ten second to end of output, at 33.6k, I suggest you are talking about
40K of page.  If that causes a doubling in bandwidth, it must be almost
entirely scripts, etc. that could have been out of lined into a cachable
file.

If menus are sensibly divided, there should be a net saving in bandwidth
through menus not fetched.

> I've chosen to ignore all this as it is inappropriate garbage, please let
> me know if I should actually take notice, and perform the actions
> specified?

I'm stuck with wording very close to this in the office - note it doesn't
even allow an organisation as addressee.  I no longer post from the office!
Use in this context simply creates a precedent for the assumption that it
was not really meant.

++ 500 ms SYN to SYN ACK; 500ms + serialisation delay for 3,000 bytes (say
600ms) for request to end of response headers and HTML pre-amble.  Total
1.1 seconds.  Add some contigency to get to 2 seconds.  This assumes the
browser isn't making effective use of HTTP keep alive.


___________________________________________________________________________
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the 
individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of 
SchlumbergerSema. 
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or 
copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this email in error please notify the SchlumbergerSema Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 121 627 5600.
___________________________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 05:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT