https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35052
--- Comment #6 from MZMcBride <[email protected]> 2012-03-15 03:34:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > That guideline says not to use meta refresh in place of HTTP redirect. > > ie: A redirect page with nothing on it but a meta redirect and text saying the > user will be redirected. > > This isn't a server redirect replacement. This is a 404 page that is intended > as a 404 page and includes a meta redirect to make a guess of where a user > 'might' want to go. Except for what percent of users who aren't able to read the error page before being auto-redirected? The goal of the guideline was to clarify that redirects should be automatic or not, as browser control over meta-refresh tags (delayed redirects) wasn't (and still isn't) feasible. Even browsers with the ability to disable meta-refresh tags use such an obscure system that it's limited to only power-users. And it's exactly the opposite kind of user who needs to have the page displayed for a longer period of time usually. Auto-redirects are bad for accessibility. Providing a link to the possible intended target (the "guess," as you call it) is completely sufficient here, isn't it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
