- From: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:00:38 -0700
- To: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Monday 11 June 2001 00:04, Matt May wrote: > Given that this is the most common way around server redirects, and these > redirect pages don't present content themselves and endeavor to avoid > excess user interaction, I don't consider this to be a problem with > accessibility. If the page being refreshed contained words intended for the > user to read (e.g., splash pages), I would have different thoughts, but the > text on redirect pages is usually nothing more than a safety net. What about the breaking of the back button caused by redirects? You were on page A and followed a link to page B. Page B is a redirect to page C. Let's assume that the redirect happened flawlessly, and you (who are a blind user) are unaware of the redirect at all. You want to go back to A, so you press Alt-Left Arrow, which takes you to the previous page, B. B redirects you to C again. Only pressing Alt-Left Arrow enough times in rapid succession (difficult or impossible if you have any motor disabilities) will let you "break through" the redirect loop and get back to A. That's got nothing to do with 2.4, really; it's a navigation issue. I would say it falls under 2.3 (Give users control of mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context). But breaking their navigation is a pretty big thing to burden users with when it can be done another way. I agree, BTW, that it's unprofessional to have a bunch of "page has moved to _here_" pages; it's more unprofessional, though, to break my back button. Regards, -- Thanasis Kinias Vice President & Manager of Information Systems Optimal LLC Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2001 12:00:42 UTC