Re: refresh

> We all totally agree that refreshing pages messes up users on Assistive
> technologies, and that they should not have to put up with it. 
>  
> That is not the question and never was.

I think the most important is to find out where refresh mechanisms are
really necessary, and to clarify all situations where they may be indispensable,
from a company and private Web site to any application.

Thus I don't see any composition of prioritized refresh uses, I first
propose to create one. And maybe the result is that the WG could only recommend a
common sense and reduced use of these mechanisms, maybe it can recommend them
to be completely banned.

In my opinion (and as I wrote before), server-side redirects are definitely
more elegant than client-side redirects. But sometimes client-side redirects
are okay, too, see situations where authors have to reference to the new
document source (e.g. when a search engine links to the old source), but don't
have any server access (to e.g. configure the .htaccess). 

By the way, I guess the refresh to shifted document versions is the most
popular use -- and even legitimate. What is more sore, to be (301) redirected to
the 'real' document, or to get a nice '404 - File Not Found' message...? --
I prefer the first variant, regardless of which redirect used -- I only want
to get the information needed, using assistive technologies or not. So maybe
the suggested refresh listing might be helpful.


Regards,
 Jens.



>  
> We are confusing issues hear
>  
> We all totally agree that refreshing pages messes up users on Assistive
> technologies, and that they should not have to put up with it. 
>  
> That is not the question and never was.
>  
> The question is also not whether we personally like an affect or find it
> annoying. 
>  
> The question is: Where is the best place to solve this issue
>  
> Assistive technologies are already starting to address it by blocking
> the refresh. This is easily done at the user end.
> Protocols could cope with refresh better as described in the previous
> email.
>  
> >From what I have seen working on the guidelines  so far,  we  try to put
> as few restrictions on the web content as we can. If we can easily solve
> things as a user agent end we do. We are not forming guidelines to help
> create pages that we like, or restrict the web designer when we can
> avoid it. We try to move protocols to provide for device independence
> and hand control of presentation and form of content to the user. In
> this case that would imply allowing refresh for users who want it and
> functional alterative when they do not want it.
>  
> Note: Some applications need refresh (and the % does not, in my opinion,
> matter) 
>  
> I request again for Michel to ping coordination on this
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
>  
> 
> Visit us at the UB  <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Access website
> 
> UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5
Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91

Mail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com>

Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 06:58:47 UTC