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

Re: Remarks on Checkpoints

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 10:00:03 +0100
Message-Id: <199901080900.KAA07414@www47.inria.fr>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Using Frames is not intrinsically bad. It is perfectly possible to create
> a site which uses frames extensively, yet causes no accessibility
> problems. It requires the use of NOFRAMES to give access to the content
> pages. 

It doesn't require the use of NOFRAMES if the UA is smart enough to
read the content of the FRAME elements.

When I look at the following markup, which is compliant with the
guideline for FRAMESET, I can't help but think this is bogus, because
of the duplicate information found in titles and NOFRAME anchors.

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
  <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
      <FRAME title="Some neat contents" src="contents_of_frame1.html">
      <FRAME title="A neat image" src="contents_of_frame2.gif">
  </FRAMESET>
  <FRAME title="Some other neat contents" src="contents_of_frame3.html">
  <NOFRAMES>
      <P>This frameset document contains:
      <UL>
         <LI><A href="contents_of_frame1.html">Some neat contents</A>
         <LI><IMG src="contents_of_frame2.gif" alt="A neat image">
         <LI><A href="contents_of_frame3.html">Some other neat contents</A>
      </UL>
  </NOFRAMES>
</FRAMESET>
</HTML>

To me, either one or the other is required, but not both.
Received on Friday, 8 January 1999 04:00:25 GMT

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