- From: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:37:10 +1100
- To: "Michael Cooper" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
That's why server side redirects are the most efficient way of dealing with these types of web maintenance issues, they don't cause any of these problems. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Cooper My opinion about redirect and refresh - the problem is that the user may be surprised and their screen reader interrupted, lose their place if they're using a screen magnifier, etc., if a page redirects or refreshes after a period of time. I think the WCAG 1.0 guideline about redirect was a precursor to the more general requirement in Section 508 about any kind of timed process, which has been introduced into WCAG 2.0. But, if a redirect has no timeout associated with it, that is the page redirects instantly, I believe that is not an accessibility problem since the user won't have started interacting with the page by the time it changes. Of course a *refresh* with a timeout of 0 would have no meaning. So redirects and refresh with a timeout create a problem, but redirects without a timeout do not. As Jens says, (untimed) redirects are an important way of keeping a site in one piece after a redesign, among other purposes. I am not speaking to the merits of server-side vs. client-side refresh/redirect here. The existing discussion is a good one. I'm just trying to clarify that it's not the redirect itself that is a problem, it's the timed nature of it. Michael
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 15:40:07 UTC