W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2006

Re: XHTML Applications and XML Processors [was Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript]

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:41:06 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010608021341j465709c9yec7e63b97ce298@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

On 8/2/06, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com> wrote:
>
>
> "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca> wrote in message
> news:005501c6b658$a0320dd0$e08240ab@Piglet...
>
> >I would, however, like to comment on the assertion that Bjoern makes that
> >"...Users want web applications to respond to their actions before they
> >have
> >been fully loaded..."  While you have the right to your opinion, can you
> >actually back this statement up with factual data that *proves* this
> >statement?
>
> Proves the statement?  I could show you (with appropriate NDA's and
> agreement from 3rd parties) plenty of user testing that shows users start
> interacting with any control as soon as they are able, it matters not if
> "the whole document has downloaded" - that's simply not a concept the users
> understand, they interact with things as soon as they are able - so as soon
> as they are shown it, no matter how they are shown it.  And at the same time
> they are not prepared to wait more than N seconds (and N varies between
> people, and what they are expecting at the url.)  If your entire XML
> document takes longer than N seconds to download, you need to have shown
> them something - which means they will start interacting with it.

Perhaps pulling in the desktop metaphor of dynamic loading is
appropriate here. Provide a basic framework for interaction and load
the parts that the user interacts with as the user interacts with
them, all the while loading modules while the connection is idle.


> >  As I am primarily an accessibility advocate, I would venture to
> guess that users of Adaptive Technology such as Screen Readers may disagree
> with you; the way that they interact with web pages/application relies, in a
> large part, with them being able to access all data in a linear fashion, and
> not in a "whole page scan" model that most visual users would adopt.
>
> So a screen user reader would expect a 1mb document to be fully downloaded
> before it even started to read the first line? I am astonished to believe
> that, surely they, like anyone else want to get to the content as soon as
> possible, why would they want to wait, simply to be told "XHTML Applciations
> and XML processors" etc.

I think this falls into two categories.

1) What the heck is the author of the document doing thinking he can
create 1mb documents? That's not exactly lightweight and web-like.
2) I think the user of the screen reader will be more upset if either
content is added above the current aural cursor; they have to repeat
content because of added content; or if the system gets confused or
crashes because the content is changing as it speaks.

It seems to me the web is the only place where a developer is expected
to create an application that handles operation while not completely
loaded. Incremental loading works well as long as you're not expected
to do anything dynamic. The browser manufacturers have pulled off a
miracle getting to work this well. We may be pushing the limits too
far.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 20:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT