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 10:41:52 +0100
Message-ID: <00f001c6b6e4$703c3330$1b02a8c0@Sniff>
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>

"John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
> OK, and this is where I am confused - you are advocating the ability for
> scripts to fire in mid-stream or certain user-groups are "harmed".  How
> are they harmed - exactly?

By having content they cannot interact with, by having interface controls 
which act differently "post load" to "pre load", consistency is important to 
great many users, particularly important to those with learning 
difficulties, but relevant to all.

> As I am understanding, Mark is simply advocating that scripts fire after
> the document has loaded completely, and not mid-load.  How is this
> really harmful?

Because it means people cannot interact with the document until after this 
load event fires.

>  Now it may
> in fact add to the overall time required for total processing for that
> user group, but on another level it also "levels the playing field",
> which rightly or wrongly is and may significantly be affected by
> non-technical requirements such as legislation that insists on
> "equality".

Other groups accessibilty is not harmed by the allowing scripts to fire, and 
many groups are harmed, I'm concerned you think harming other groups so they 
get a similar experience to those who have adapted to that experience.

>  But since I cannot see the
> "harm" in waiting for Mark's suggested model (full download and then
> post-process), and can see the harm of your proposal

Could you explain the harm, 'cos thee Gez Lemon working with Ajax and 
accessibility page doesn't illustrate it (of course the sample pages are not 
accessible to me, clicking on get a random fact nothing happens...)

>- and since, in
> practical terms they essentially arrive at the same place (yours in
> microsecond faster)...

NO!  not a microsecond faster, pages typically take 10s of seconds or longer 
to load.

> I am oft concerned that one stream of W3C activity often "forgets" other
> streams... Such as WAI.

I'm an IE in a WAI group, I'm hardly going to forget that group whilst I'm 
just an irregular commenter in an HTML group, there simply are more groups 
than those who can only use AT that work with the whole final form rendered 
document.

> And again, pardon my ignorance, but how does microsecond delays (even
> delays of a whole second - the time it took to read this aside) in the
> ability to fire scripts cause "harm".

Simply because it's not microsecond, it's many hundreds of seconds, this 
maybe where you've fallen down in your experience, you aren't realising just 
how long or what exactly it means for a page to load.

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:06:36 GMT

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