W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1999

Frames proposal [Was: [Fwd: Status of Quick Tips revisions]]

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:10:53 -0400
Message-ID: <378F83BD.12C0B701@w3.org>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Charles wrote:
>NOFRAMES is a fundamental requirement of the frameset DTD. It is not legacy,
>it is the correct way to provide access to the content of frames for non
>spatially based browsers, 

I'm not sure I agree here. I think your comment assumes two things:

a) That the HTML WG in conjunction with WAI input knew everything that
   had to be done. I don't think this was the case.
 
b) That rendering of NOFRAMES information, whatever the element
contained,
   would suffice to create an equivalent browser experience. Nothing
   guarantees that in the HTML 4.0 spec and since the spec doesn't
   say anything about rendering (besides when, and even that has led
   to confusion), I don't think one can rely on consistent behavior
   from user agents.

This is not to say that NOFRAMES is a bad idea or should not
be used. I just think it's hard to say it's the definitive solution
for making frames accessible.

>in the same way the the correct way to provide a
>full description of an image using the IMG element is to add a URI as a
>longdesc. 

I don't think the situation is the same - longdesc semantics are
not required to achieve as much as NOFRAMES semantics. Authors needn't
do nearly as much to make a long description useful for an image.
I think they have to think a lot more about making frames accessible,
and thus, it's not cut and dry to just say "use NOFRAMES". 

How about this language as a quick tip:

  Title frames and provide NOFRAMES equivalents.

  Comments:
    - leave "name" and "title" as (ugly) details to found in the techs
      document.
    - the key word is "equivalent"

 - ian


>It just so happens that there are emergency repair strategies for
>framesets, although in most cases they provide a poor form of access at best.
>
>This means that Noframes is not necessarily a P1 requirement for
>accessibility on desktop machines (it probably is on mobile machines at the
>moment), but does not mean it it is unnecssary. Second-class access is
>appropriate for second-class people, but there are none of those.
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>
>  >>>PROPOSAL: "Frames. Label with the _title_ or _name_ attribute."
>  >>>OR PROPOSAL: "Frames. Use _noframe_, and _title_ or _name_ attribute.
(NB:
>  >>>"noframe" would be in small caps)
>  >>>
>  >>WC:: I like the second proposal.  This technique is included in
checkpoint
>  >>6.5, which is P2.
>  >
>  >HB: Even if it is only in the transitional DTD. Are we continuing that
>  >legacy?
>  >
>  there are several things in the WCAG that are "legacy" caused by the
>  widespread use of older user agents or lack of support for newer features.
>  therefore, "until user agents" seems to apply here.  
-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Friday, 16 July 1999 15:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:25 GMT