- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:27:49 -0700
- To: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Sunday 10 June 2001 12:07, Matt May wrote:
> On a tangent: for the "meta refresh" problem, I think that a technique
> needs to be placed in 2.4 to allow meta refreshes in HTML for site
> redirection ("this site has moved to..."). It is unfortunately necessary to
> do these redirects on many sites, as the designers do not control the
> operation of the server.
Why is it necessary?
Of course, it's preferable to use a 302 or something similar when one has
control over the server. But there are other solutions, like using sym links
on UNIX file systems, for moved documents. And there's nothing wrong with a
simple page that says, "this site has moved to . . ." and gives a link.
The meta refresh is a slick trick and it's easy to implement. Designers will
howl if WCAG says not to use it -- I know, I've heard them at training
sessions. But there are other ways of doing the job without introducing
accessibility problems.
When I tell some people they can't just export HTML from MS Word, they get
upset, too. But that doesn't mean that MS Word-generated HTML should be
exempted from the requirement to put alt text on images, or from the
requirement to use structural markup, or from the requirement to conform to a
published standard.
In my opinion, WAI would be doing itself a disservice to create exceptions
based on convenience, when simple (and perfectly "reasonable") alternatives
exist.
Regards,
--
Thanasis Kinias
Vice President & Manager of Information Systems
Optimal LLC
Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 02:27:47 UTC