Re: Clarification of checkpoint 7.4


this is an interesting solution.  Do you have a version of this up and 
running somewhere?  It would be good to test it and get people's feedback.


At 08:13 PM 8/18/00 , Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 05:10 PM 8/18/2000 , Ian Jacobs wrote:
> > > What if the autorefresh page has
> > > a large warning on the front?  What if the time between refreshes
> > > is user-configurable?
> >That's a user agent capacity (that is not required by the UAAG 1.0,
> >by the way: we only say the UA has to allow the user to access
> >the new content manually).
>    <p>
>    The following page will autorefresh at a frequency you can choose.
>    If you choose now and it's too fast or too slow, you can press
>    the 'options' button to return to this menu.
>    </p>
>    <label for="secs">
>      How many seconds should there be between each refresh?
>      (Enter 0 or leave blank for no refresh.)
>    </label>
>    <input type="text" name="seconds" id="secs" value="0" />
>    <input name="submit" value="Show the next page" />
> > > What if the page also includes prominent
> > > controls that say "halt autorefresh" and "resume autorefresh"?
> >Generalized:
> >  Until user agents do A, or unless you the author do A, etc.
> >However, if the author provides a mechanism that is not
> >interoperable, users are likely to lose.
>Right, but it's possible to do this in a way that doesn't break
>things.  For example, let's say I explicitly state up front "this
>way of accessing the content requires javascript" (so that I can
>use Javascript for this version of the interface), and then I
>write a nice little javascript that waits <n> seconds -- as set
>by the form above -- and then reloads the page.  But before I
>do that, I check to see if the "halt autorefresh" button has
>been pressed.  (This called another javascript which saved state
>in some manner.)  If it has, then I don't go ahead with the
>That's just a trivial example, but assuming that I have a page
>that's accessible to non-javascript browsers, I don't think I'm
>introducing any additional accessibility errors.  Or am I?
> >My only fear is if the "making sure" part requires proprietary
> >technology, etc.
>Sometimes proprietary technologies, if used correctly, can be
>enabling.  For example, there are more controls available to
>the user in a Quicktime animation than in an animated gif.  You
>can pause, stop, restart, back up, etc in Quicktime, and you
>don't have that level of control in gif animation.
>Kynn Bartlett  <>             
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta        
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
>AWARE Center Director               
>Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee!

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346

Received on Thursday, 24 August 2000 14:51:06 UTC