| 12:19 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The @media construct allows style sheet rules for various media in the same style sheet
| 12:41 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
However, that won't solve my dilemma. I need to send the reader to a different rendering of the page. I could show you how it works, but we can't do that here (No links TOS).
I still need to work on making the AJAX a bit more accessible, but, even then, it won't be that good.
The non-AJAX version will be fine. I just need to make sure that screen readers get that, as opposed to the dynamic version.
| 1:17 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I need to send the reader to a different rendering of the page |
Ummm... that's how it works... ONE centralised source of content with class declarations handling how the content is (or is not) presented in a variety of media
Or have I missed your point?
| 1:21 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, but that's OK. It's a murky point.
| 2:05 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Can you provide both sets of content, the accessible one first, and use your alternative CSS versions to hide one or the other entirely?
| 2:36 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Can you provide both sets of content, the accessible one first, and use your alternative CSS versions to hide one or the other entirely? |
Not without serious cost. It's an event search that uses PHP to XSLT an XML feed from another server. It can be pretty time-consuming. The lists can get very long, and it can take ten seconds or more to finish a request.
I need to commit to a path before sending the request to the other server. The AJAX path renders the page, then fills in the list after being fetched. The non-AJAX path delays rendering the page until it gets the rendered XSLT, so that means I can't redesign the delivery without incurring serious usability costs to the 90% of users that have AJAX-aware browsers.
That's why I want to make sure the proper path is executed.
| 3:28 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Couldn't you have one version load in a visible <div> and the other in a hidden <div> then have some script that toggles which one to display. I assume this would work.
| 10:23 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
That's the problem. I can't. Each load brings in beaucoup content, and takes quite some time. I guess I could store the content and output it twice, thus saving the time it takes to go and fetch the feed, but then, I'd be feeding a lot of data to 90% of the users for 10% of the users.
I just measured the Brooklyn dump, and it's 370K. I don't want to give everyone 700K, just so a few of them can see it. I just want to make sure that the correct 370K gets sent to the browser.
| 10:31 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am sure there has got to be a simple way but it escapes just now. Busy working on my own site :) I'll keep thinking about it.
| 10:57 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
First link on the page 'go to accessible version'... follow the link see the accessible version. If you want to keep the same URL, then just send a get argument on the end.
| 11:15 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Can't you use a <link rel... />?
| 11:53 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|First link on the page 'go to accessible version'... follow the link see the accessible version. If you want to keep the same URL, then just send a get argument on the end. |
That's something to consider. I think maybe Marshall's <link /> idea may be the best way to do this (the site framework is WordPress, so I only have limited interaction between the list -which is a WP plugin- and the theme header.php, which is where either of these solutions would be implemented.)
However, I also seem to remember reading on this forum somewhere that links like that are considered rude.
The most polite way would be to handle it in exactly the same manner as I do non-AJAX browsers: Just send them static XHTML. The entire structure is already there. I just need to figure out how to send the browser to the correct code.
| 11:58 am on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Links like what are considered rude?
| 12:09 pm on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I apologize, bad choice of words.
Links that require an extra action on the part of the visitor (skipnav, for example). The page should just plain render they way it's supposed to, with no intercession by the user.
This was why I like your idea, because these head tags are usually executed by the browser automatically. I'm just not sure if the reader would be able to use it.
| 12:12 pm on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Run a test page if you can.
| 12:17 pm on Jun 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, there's not gonna be a quick and easy solution. I could always check UAs, but that is sort of the least palatable way to do it, as I would have to keep updating it for new browsers.
I wonder if there is a WURFL [wurfl.sourceforge.net] for screen readers?