- From: <bill@eramp.com>
- Date: Sun Oct 21 10:14:51 2001
- To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I agree with Chuck's solution. Defaulting to client processing but providing "slide-ability" of that functionality up to the server when necessary can (depending on the script) often be as simple as combining browser sniffing with the addition of a single directive within the script tag. To use an Active Server Page (ASP)example: <SCRIPT RUNAT="Server"> will run the script on the server, where <Script> will default to the client. An "if" statement based on the result of a browser sniffing test can add/don't add the additional attribute. Of course, the script itself will need to be written with the consideration that it could run in either environments. As an example requested, the Microsoft site provides this type of functionality in its toolbar (or at least use to, I haven't checked it out lately). Bill Shackleton ========================= Access Empowers People... ...Barriers Disable Them www.eramp.com -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chuck Letourneau Sent: October 19, 2001 10:28 AM To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org Subject: Combining Server/Client-side techniques for accessibility Hi All, I broached this during today's discussion of techniques for in-page expansion of detail in the "Implementation Plan for Web Accessibility" document. I have provided slightly more than the one or two lines of explanation that Judy requested. Sorry about this <grin>. Many of us believe that server-side scripting makes dynamic or interactive pages more accessible than pages using corresponding client-side techniques. Oft-heard excuses for the "requirement" for client-side processing - e.g. for form validation, dynamic layout and content, etc. - instead of server-side processing are that "our server can't handle the transaction load" or that "the response time for clients would be unreasonable". Since it is sometimes difficult to create the equivalent functionality of client-side features in non-scripted HTML I suggest the following "solution": Why not design the scripted functionality with client-side techniques that will be used by the vast majority of visitors to the site (i.e. those whose user agents do support and who can access client-side services). Then, instead of making the accessible "fall-back" a non-scripted alternative, make it a call to an equivalent server-side script. This means that the majority of users will process the service locally - putting no further strain on the server - and only the relative few who won't or can't support scripting will cause a further transaction on the server. I don't have any statistics handy, but for sake of argument I'll guess that 5% of the browsing public can't or won't support client-side scripting. If a page gets 100000 hits per day, 95000 would be processed on client-side and only 5000 would issue another hit on the server. I would be surprised that anyone expecting a high transaction volume would not have at least 5% extra capacity on their server. For the end-user who needs the server-side version there might be some slight reduction in transaction speed but I suspect that the slight speed drop would be mitigated by the fact that the functionality is available at all. Turned the other way, the organization benefits from making the page or service accessible to users of more types of user agents. By the way, please don't ask me to provide you with a real example of this suggestion. I don't have one. I would be really happy if someone who is knowledgeable in both server- and client-side programming techniques could try this and report back to us (and probably the WCAG group). Maybe one of you knows of a live example and could point us to it. I have based this suggestion on the word of some technical folk who thought that "this should be possible". Regards, Chuck Letourneau ---------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 10:14:51 UTC