W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Preload for <section>

From: Micho <MichoKest@terra.es>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 22:18:43 +0200
Message-ID: <000701c26663$180e6ff0$6401a8c0@athlon>
To: "C. Bottelier" <c.bottelier@ITsec.nl>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>, <www-style@w3.org>


More functionality can never affect backwardly the XHTML 2.0 standard, and
the pre-load proposal is both easy to implement and to code, so why not do
it? It is not a required argument, and if used it's very simple and clear.
Bad design? If somebody doesn't like this functionality, don't use it, but
make it a part of the new standard because preloading _is_ important.

As for Flash, I also dislike it's poor compatibility, but that is quite
off-topic, I only posted it for the example.

Thanks


> At 06:38 PM 9/27/02, Micho wrote:
> >If included as an optional attribute it wouldn't have an impact on
> >designers not using it, and it would still be useful.
>
> How about for instance a screenreader, as sson as the
> page, or a section of it, is completed, the screenreader
> would start either reading the page from top, or jump forward or backward
> to read the changed (fully loaded)
> section, or the user would not know that a section that
> was skipped because it was not loaded completely.
>
>
> >And, as it's use would be limited for sections that
> >require to be loaded before their display, it
> >wouldn't affect the whole page, it simply would help
> >accomplishing a convincing design.
>
> It would as an authors could do:
>
> <section pre-load="">
> <h1>Welcome to my site</h1>
> <p>All my information would go here
> because I dislike it that all the images,
> embeded objects, applets, and so on apear
> on by one
> ...
> ...
> ...
> <section>
>
>
> >At the moment, scripts and other stuff is used for
> >some kind of 'pre-loading'
>
> I thing every one agress that using scripts to either
> hide content or to (and especially) generate content
> is not done, because it poses to much issues, mainly
> generating completly unaccessible website.s
>
>
> >-the most usual has been seen in macromedia rollover
> >images,- producing annoying effects when the rollover
> >is made over unloaded images. This proposal could
> >be code-clarifying, useful and not difficult at all
> >to implement.
>
> I wonder why flash isn't a W3 recommenbdation, and why
> many people have much accessibility problems with flash.
> For a good example you could try to visit the
> http://www.mycom.nl/ website at a resolution of 640x480
> because one needs larger fonts to read, or use it at a
> high resolution and imagine somebody sees only 10% or
> 20% of what you see, try to enlarge the font, or figure
> out what all those blurred texts say, or use Jaws, or
> HPR to have the page read to you.
>
> O.k. I know the last paragraph is off-topic but it
> demmonstrates why some technologies (even for 'normal'
> people) require much work to get it working the right
> way.
>
> Christian Bottelier
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:18:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT