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

Frames (was Re: dynamic content )

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:17:38 -0600
Message-Id: <199901271721.LAA19152@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

>> >For NOFRAMES, see
>> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JanMar/0044.html 
>> >(note that I still would like A.9.1 to be lowered to P2, I can't find
>> >it in the current issue list)
>> >
>> I moved it to the closed issues since I thought others agreed that at this
>> time it needs to be a P1.  If this was a misinterpretation we should put it
>> on the agenda for tomorrow's call.
>
>It is handled by lynx, emacs/w3, and maybe others, and on the other
>hand, I don't how many agent support the NOFRAME tags (e.g. I don't a
>see a way in my Netscape to say : use NOFRAME)
>
>People accessing frame without an index (built by the UA) and without
>NOFRAME can still access information, it's just not convenient because
>you have to move to the next line and up rather randomly.
>
While Netscape does not allow you to "turn off" frames, it will let you
open a selected frame in a new window.  The problem with frames and screen
readers is similar to that of tables and screen readers, i.e. it will read
across the frames as one garbled sentence.  This is not a problem in lynx
and emacs (since they open frames in single windows) nor is it a problem
for Netscape.  However, it is a problem for MSIE (4).  As far as I can
tell, there is no way to open a frame in its own window in IE, although
there is no way to view NOFRAMES either.

The problem is only for frames that are placed side by side, frames
appearing horizontally do not have this problem.

However, browsers that do not support frames will present a blank page if
no NOFRAMES is present.  this is an accessibility issue rather than a
usability issue, thus why this has been a P1.


>Lastly, can you please point at the agreement or argument that this
>should stay a P1 since I posted my message above ? I looked for it
>before reopening this issue and I couldn't find it in the archive.
> 
Due to the above arguments, frames remained P1.  However, since the
argument for demoting it to P2 is a backwards compatibility issue, this
part of the discussion is still open (see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-issues.html#legacy-solutions).  

--wendy
Received on Wednesday, 27 January 1999 12:21:24 GMT

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