W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Priorities of Checkpoints 3.6 and 3.7

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:37:56 -0500
Message-ID: <00e101c086dc$686d6220$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "jon gunderson" <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
ah, have you had the experience then where you miss important content
by not clicking the refresh fast enough?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>
Cc: "jon gunderson" <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>; <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Sent: January 25, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Priorities of Checkpoints 3.6 and 3.7

Either way there is a risk of losing something. The proposal is that
the user
gets to decide whether they miss out on getting updates every n
seconds, as
prpoposed by the author, or whether tey miss out on getting a chance
actually find out what is in the content, a constraint imposed by
their own
system. I use lynx specifically for this purpose - it converts the
into a link that requires user activation rather than making it happen

I think Jon's suggestions here are very sound.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

  my problem with tinkering with refreshes still holds.  there is
  content that will be missed if we control the refresh and that which
  will be missed if we do not.  I think this should be kicked around a
  bit with the content people and perhaps pf or a group that sets
  for causing the refreshes in the first places?  I think then if you
  are going to require the user agent to interact in this way that you
  must also require that it store the refreshed content and allow it
  be retrieved as needed.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "jon gunderson" <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
  To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
  Sent: January 24, 2001 9:44 AM
  Subject: Priorities of Checkpoints 3.6 and 3.7

  I think the raltionale for them being P2 is that in the case of
  the author had not intended the page with the redirect to be viewed
  anyway, so that not having access was not considered to be a P1
  I thin this one does not need to be changed.

  For automatic client side refreshes this probably needs to be
  a P1. One techniques is that the stop loading button stops the
  and the user can refresh manually.  We should see if this already
  with current browsers.


Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61
409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1
617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis
Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 09:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC