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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:53:12 -0500 (EST)
To: dd@w3.org
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901071047060.13-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Daniel Dardailler wrote:

  
  > 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.

CMN:: There is a little bit of extra markup required - something in
NOFRAMES to give access to the content, and a way in framed pages to
navigate around somehow. 

Creating accessible material is about how to do stuff so that emergency
solutions (which tend to be second rate at best) are not required. Where
emergency solutions are 'universally' available, it is P2, where they are
not it is P1. 

On the 'universally available' topic, I'm not ready to buy the idea that
people can get and run lynx. It requires some technical skills that I am
not sure we can demand of users. (But this is a very vague area of my
thinking. What do we demand of whom?) But that is a matter for the 'legacy
solutions' thread, I think

Charles
Received on Thursday, 7 January 1999 10:53:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT