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

RE: Frames (was Re: dynamic content )

From: Charles Oppermann <chuckop@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:40:54 -0800
Message-ID: <BB61526CDE70D2119D0F00805FBECA2F054E9C0D@RED-MSG-55>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
<<
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.  
>>

Are you certain this is still a problem with current screen readers?  Each
frame is drawn in it's own particular window.  The screen reader "knows"
that there are two windows.  If the screen reader is reading across frame
boundaries, it's because it's ignoring the window boundary.

A similar example is with the Windows Explorer.  There is a tree on the left
representing the hierarchy of the file system, with the particular files
shown in the right side window.  Screen readers do not read across those
windows.

So while older screen readers might have ignored the frame boundary, I
believe that most of them have updated to respect the window boundary and
use programmatic means, such as Active Accessibility to get the information.

<<
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 Internet Explorer 4 Power Toys set allows you to open frames in their
own window.  You tab to the frame, then press Shift+F10 to get the context
menu for the frame.  The "Open frame in new window" option will be listed.

Charles Oppermann
Program Manager, Accessibility and Disabilities Group, Microsoft Corporation
mailto:chuckop@microsoft.com  http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
"A computer on every desk and in every home, usable by everyone!"

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:chisholm@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 9:18 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Frames (was Re: dynamic content )



>> >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 19:41:00 GMT

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