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

Re: Priorities of Checkpoints 3.6 and 3.7

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:44:37 -0500 (EST)
To: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
cc: jon gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101250941490.20240-100000@tux.w3.org>
Well, I have to choose. I either get the most up to date information, or I
get to read it.

The most common use case for me is cricket scores. I actually switch - the
first time I look, I spend a lot longer than is noramlly given, to get an
idea of what is going on. Then I do a refresh and get the latest data. Then I
decide how much of the intervening stuff I need to read.

If you think that the fall of a wicket or two is important information (it is
in terms  of understanding the impact on the game) then yes, I have missed
important information by getting to understand what was going on. But only
for a limited amount of time, and I could not have used the information at
all if I had not been able to slow the refresh.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

  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
  to
  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
  refresh
  into a link that requires user activation rather than making it happen
  automatically.

  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
  rules
    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
  to
    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
    redirects
    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
  issue.
    So
    I thin this one does not need to be changed.

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

    Jon




  --
  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)



-- 
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 09:45:20 UTC

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