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

Re: Pop-Ups

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:52:36 +0100
Message-ID: <3DB10134.9000104@btinternet.com>
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Jim

with server side scripts unless I am mistaken one looses the benefit of 
open-source, and this is not to be dismissed lightly.
In an environment where one is trying to promote accessibility the 
learning route needs every encouragement.

Jonathan

Jim Ley wrote:

>"John Foliot - bytown internet" <foliot@bytowninternet.com> wrote in
>message news:GKEFJJEKDDIMBHJOGLENIEOFCMAA.foliot@bytowninternet.com...
>
>  
>
>>What concerns me the most is that 99 times out of 100 there are
>>    
>>
>alternative
>  
>
>>solutions which developers can emply which will deliver similar or
>>    
>>
>identical
>  
>
>>functionality, yet not require the end users system set up to match a
>>certain profile - just about everything *important* that you might do
>>    
>>
>with
>  
>
>>JavaScript can be done with a server side script.
>>    
>>
>
>The main problem here though is you lose response time, slowing the
>interaction down does not make content usable, so it's often important to
>use script to ensure that users find the experience responsive enough.
>What's really needed are techniques examples of how you can do both
>without undue burden (ie have javascript which degrades gracefully)
>
>
>  
>
>>Using a combination of
>>server include and session tracking (cookies?) can provide almost
>>    
>>
>identical
>  
>
>>functionality to the end user as having a "popup" open and close...
>>    
>>
>after
>  
>
>>all the main reason (especially in the situation you illustrate) is to
>>    
>>
>keep
>  
>
>>a user session open.
>>    
>>
>
>I personally find session cookies more invasive than script, and
>certainly harder to provide sensible degrade paths.
>
>  
>
>>How is that valuable or accessible?  Besides, in my experience,
>>Powerpoint presentations *usually* require a "voice" to explain the
>>"slides" - it is rare that all relevant information is included into
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>slide - more often it is bullet points or eye candy to be used in
>>conjunction with a narrative.
>>    
>>
>
>Absolutely, I'd love to make PowerPoint presentations accessible, they
>certainly need commentary (be it audio or an attendant text one) but the
>technology isn't there yet, even if the specs are - my current "best
>effort" relies on script and lots of different options - audio+PPT,
>audio+JPEGs, SVG, Flash, PocketPC, with the fallback situation be "here's
>the audio, here's the slide materials make of it what you can, I can't
>really give you a player" with the hope that there's some combination
>everyone can access. We don't produce text equivalent of the audio as it
>would be an undue burden on the content we produce currently, but it
>could easily be done.
>
>  
>
>>Thowing that into an eLearning application
>>does a disservice to the end user - again here the accessibilty issue
>>    
>>
>is
>  
>
>>more about requiring installed software rather than the content being
>>    
>>
>served
>  
>
>>up.
>>    
>>
>
>It also requires that the software both exists, and is accessible, you
>could easily create an accessible to published w3 standards e-learning
>app, but it would be utterly useless as not a UA in the world could do
>anything with it, to actually deliver more than HTML+images you have to
>live within what's provided by UA's  - Integration of content-types is as
>you say the most serious problem.
>
>Jim.
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2002 02:52:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT