- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:53:39 -0400
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Kynn, 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. --wendy 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). > ><form> > <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" /> ></form> > > > > 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 >autorefresh. > >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 <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ >Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ >Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ >AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ >Vote for Liz for N. Am. ICANN Nominee! http://www.khyri.com/icann/ -- 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