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

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

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:24:08 +0100
Message-ID: <002001c6b68a$c50d67d0$11e1fea9@Sniff>
To: "John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>

"John Foliot" <foliot@wats.ca>
>Fair enough, but if you are required to use a screen reading technology 
>that
>requires this, it generally in fact requires that the whole page downloads
>first.

That's an unfortunate limitation of the screen reading technology, it does 
not mean that we should limit other groups access to content to make them 
the same, the current model isn't harmed if scripts only execute at the end, 
it still works, and it still works interopably, there are of course problems 
with scripts and screen readers, we certainly know that, but changing the 
processing model in the way suggested here isn't going to improve matters 
for screen reader users, and is going to harm others.

>Unless I am completely off base here, this effectively means that AT users
>require the full document to download so that their AT software can then
>further process the information.

There were certainly people using AT, I know of none using a particular 
screen reading software though, but let me repeat the model currently in use 
does not prevent screen readers from acting in the way you suggest, and nor 
does it require it of any other user.

>> it matters not
>> if "the whole document has downloaded" - that's simply not a concept
>> the users

>[sighted users?]

Any user, it matters not who they are - obviously for the case of a UA which 
only ever shows fully downloaded page, there is no question that a user can 
be aware of it.

>Right, and for screen reader users, this is after the document has
>completely loaded - that's how they are "shown" it. Developers may not
>*like* this fact, but for non-visual users that rely on Adaptive Technology
>(and not just play with it in the testing lab) this linear content 
>cognitive
>model is the only one they have...

I'm not sure where you've got the idea that I would in anyway dislike the 
fact non-visual users rely on AT's, or indeed any other developers, or the 
fact some people only see complete documents, however because one group only 
has linear ordering, it doesn't mean we should harm those people who have 
other models.

> (And yes, I know that this is the HTML list and
>not the WAI-IG list... But if you haven't been over to that list in a 
>while,
>you should stop by and visit <smile>)

Since WAI-IG dropped of news.gmane.org I don't post so much (I'm still 
subscribed, but on a lower priority reading place)

>Right, so don't post 1 mb documents!  (WCAG 1, Priority 2 - 12.3 Divide
>large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and
>appropriate.)

The Gez lemon url posted above took over 45 seconds to appear, lots of 
linked documents on a high latency low bandwidth connection, it doesn't 
matter why it takes a long time, we just need to accept the fact that any 
file could.

>Trust me Jim... They don't want to wait any longer than you would.  They
>have the added burden of *having* to wait, just to discover the wait was 
>for
>nothing.  Let's not add to that burden.

There has been no suggestion in this thread to add to their burden, the only 
suggestion has been to add to other users burdens.

Cheers,

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 23:24:41 GMT

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