W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Frames, was Re: Lower priority of some checkpoints

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 09:24:48 +0100
Message-Id: <199901070824.JAA10074@www47.inria.fr>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

> I disagree. Frames are a spatial metaphor, and make extremely good sense
> in a visual setting. 

Same thing can be advanced for TABLE, and we do not want to force
people to provide alternative page for TABLE, but only to markup the
TABLE so that a linear (non visual) version can be presented by a UA.

Frames are no different, and the markup needed is just the FRAME name
allowing for navigation.

> however in a voice setting they appear to be a
> slightly artificial construct, and in small devices such as PDAs and
> magnified screens they will not necessarily make sense. Although they can
> be interpreteed by User Agents (and should be) this is only sometimes the
> case. (I will argue the legacy solutions issue in a seperate email.) Where
> it is not the case, people who rely on such User Agents cannot get access
> to the content.
> Ergo, I think it is priority one.

We're back to square one: judgement call on the basis on "where it is
not the case, people are screwed". Lynx does it, Opera does it, so
my position is that it's a P2.
Received on Thursday, 7 January 1999 03:24:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:28 UTC