- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:35:23 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> also useful. For example, checking the required fields in a form on the > client before sending the data to the server is common and creates no > disability issues. Scripts that add interactive visual highlighting Except it does in practice, as it is common for the form actually submitted not to be the form that is completed by the user or for the control that triggers the submission not to be a control that would naturally trigger the submission. Basically this is complicated because it tends to be associated with a desire to re-write the browser's user interface behaviour. > (onMouse over's) improve usability and benefit the learning disabled. Except when the home page is a browser sniffing page that comes up blank without scripting. Moreover, there are declaritive ways of doing reasonable mouseover effects on text, and if they are desirable feedback cues, they ought to be built into the browser's standard behaviour. (Image mouseovers tend to slow down load times on pages that are already too slow to load.) > ease of use, etc. then client side processing is the answer. In other > words, that is why it was invented, to reduce the burden on the server. I'm not convinced that that is why Netscape invented it. I'm pretty certain that the IE extensions to the original Netscape scripting aren't intended for that purpose. Certainly only a small proportion of scripting in the field is for validation. Most of it is to create user interface behaviours, i.e. to extend or replace the browser's user interface. I'd believe the server loading issue more if sites didn't do things that made static images and pages uncachable, as a matter of policy.
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 02:35:34 UTC