Re: Preload for <section>

Micho, the larger point here is that "preloading" as you are stating it is
purely presentational, and therefore does not belong in HTML or in markup
for that matter.

Please take a look at the CSS solution that I discussed which should be able
to give you the capabilities you are looking for:



On 9/27/02 1:18 PM, "Micho" <> wrote:

> More functionality can never affect backwardly the XHTML 2.0 standard, and
> the pre-load proposal is both easy to implement and to code, so why not do
> it? It is not a required argument, and if used it's very simple and clear.
> Bad design? If somebody doesn't like this functionality, don't use it, but
> make it a part of the new standard because preloading _is_ important.
> As for Flash, I also dislike it's poor compatibility, but that is quite
> off-topic, I only posted it for the example.
> Thanks
>> At 06:38 PM 9/27/02, Micho wrote:
>>> If included as an optional attribute it wouldn't have an impact on
>>> designers not using it, and it would still be useful.
>> How about for instance a screenreader, as sson as the
>> page, or a section of it, is completed, the screenreader
>> would start either reading the page from top, or jump forward or backward
>> to read the changed (fully loaded)
>> section, or the user would not know that a section that
>> was skipped because it was not loaded completely.
>>> And, as it's use would be limited for sections that
>>> require to be loaded before their display, it
>>> wouldn't affect the whole page, it simply would help
>>> accomplishing a convincing design.
>> It would as an authors could do:
>> <section pre-load="">
>> <h1>Welcome to my site</h1>
>> <p>All my information would go here
>> because I dislike it that all the images,
>> embeded objects, applets, and so on apear
>> on by one
>> ...
>> ...
>> ...
>> <section>
>>> At the moment, scripts and other stuff is used for
>>> some kind of 'pre-loading'
>> I thing every one agress that using scripts to either
>> hide content or to (and especially) generate content
>> is not done, because it poses to much issues, mainly
>> generating completly unaccessible website.s
>>> -the most usual has been seen in macromedia rollover
>>> images,- producing annoying effects when the rollover
>>> is made over unloaded images. This proposal could
>>> be code-clarifying, useful and not difficult at all
>>> to implement.
>> I wonder why flash isn't a W3 recommenbdation, and why
>> many people have much accessibility problems with flash.
>> For a good example you could try to visit the
>> website at a resolution of 640x480
>> because one needs larger fonts to read, or use it at a
>> high resolution and imagine somebody sees only 10% or
>> 20% of what you see, try to enlarge the font, or figure
>> out what all those blurred texts say, or use Jaws, or
>> HPR to have the page read to you.
>> O.k. I know the last paragraph is off-topic but it
>> demmonstrates why some technologies (even for 'normal'
>> people) require much work to get it working the right
>> way.
>> Christian Bottelier

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:51:07 UTC