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

Re: Shorter and more URGENT

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:28:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org, ij@w3.org, dd@w3.org, chisholm@trace.wisc.edu, po@trace.wisc.edu
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907161818120.11491-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think that what the guidelines say about noframes (i.e. that they are P2,
in the case where you are using frames) is correct. I think that noframes is
an important part of using frames accessibly, and is something taht is still
very rarely done properly, and should therefore be on the card. I have no
problem with what is already there, excpet I think the lack of mentioning
noframes is a serious ommission in the context of the card (especially at the
price of 11 letters, including 8 bold ones, plus a space.

I don't think that either Daniel or I are about to change our repsective
minds on the importance of this (we haven't in the last 6 or 8 months) and I
don't think it is important enough to hold up printing of the card. I do
think it is important enough to keep asking for it, and I will. (The luxury
of not being chair). In the absence of that, I think the proposals and the
current text are all good enough. If it fits, I think meaningful is a useful
thing to say about labelling.

I have read all the comments posted on this issue to date. I agree with Ian
that providing longdesc and providing noframes require different types of
thinking. I disagree (tentatively) with the idea that one or the other is
more difficult to do well.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:

  Charles, 
  
  It hasn't gone to the printers yet, partly because of this. Please see my
  most recent comment, with status; and also Ian and Daniel's comments
  regarding this interpretation of the use of NOFRAMES. If the argument is
  that you think this is the way the guidelines _should_ read, and therefore
  we should put it on the card, then we're going beyond the bounds of what we
  should do with the Quick Tips. That's how I read this:
  
  CMN: >Basically I think noframes should be used to provide good quality
  access to
  >framesets in non-serial media.
  
  If I'm on target there, then our hope for consensus is either with an
  abbreviated conditional, if people agree to my recent proposal: 
  
  JB PROPOSAL #2: "Frames: Use _title_ or _name_, and NOFRAMES if complex."
  
  ...or to default to the original text on the card, given that time
  constraints are requiring us to be conservative on changes-- e.g. no change
  in the material except where there is strong consensus. Can you
  specifically comment on whether you thought there was something _incorrect_
  with the use of "label" in the phrase on the card "Frames: Label with the
  _title_ or _name_ attribute" or was your concern w/ labeling them w/ title
  or name...?
  
  CMN: >simply labelling them is a very bad
  >practice, which excludes accessibility in non-frames capable browsers 
  
  ...or at least confirm whether the "good enough" in your last message was
  regarding JB PROPOSAL #2 or the original text on the card.
  
  And other folks reading this this weekend still need to comment on JB
  PROPOSAL #2, please... 
  
  Thanks,
  
  - Judy
  
  At 05:40 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
  >For waht it's worth (I assume that this lot have gone to the printer now) I
  >would prefer to have 
  >
  >8. Frames: Title frames meaningfully and use _noframes_.
  >
  >Basically I think noframes should be used to provide good quality access to
  >framesets in non-serial media.
  >
  >I would also suggest
  >
  >10. Validate: Use avaluation tools, guidelines, checklist http:// etc
  >
  >However I am definitiel of the opinion that the value of the quicktips card
  >is more in spreading the message than getting it perfectly accurate - I think
  >there is no chance of doing the latter, but that it is an extremely useful
  >reminder anyway.
  >
  >Charles McCN
  >
  >On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:
  >
  >  VOTES PLEASE!
  >  
  >  Two items to look at new solutions on; see compiled threads on my last
  >  e-mail for background.
  >  
  >  8. Frames. Title frames, and provide _NOFRAMES_ equivalent.
  >  
  >  10. Check your work. Use evaluation tools, guidelines and checklist
  >  www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT
  >  
  >  - Judy
  >  
  >  ----------
  >  Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >  Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
  >  World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  >  MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
  >  
  >
  >--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
  >phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  >
  ----------
  Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
  World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 16 July 1999 18:28:14 GMT

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