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

Re: NOFRAMES is the right way.

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 13:54:55 -0500 (EST)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
cc: WAI Markup Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902031354410.22013-100000@tux.w3.org>
I like this approach.

Charles

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Jason White wrote:

  Would it be possible to propose a simple measure of frame complexity, E.G.
  a frameset is too complex if (1) it includes more than two frames, and (2)
  the contents of at least two of these frames do not remain constant
  (in other words, at least two frames are referred to in TARGET attributes
  somewhere in the collection of documents to which the frameset applies).
  
  NOFRAMES is priority 1 for complex frames, priority 2 otherwise.
  
  The essence of this approach is to set a determinate upper limit on frame
  complexity, based on our assessment of what is readily navigable and
  comprehensible when frames are treated as links in a serial medium such as
  audio. The above example of a complexity definition is just an
  illustration and has not been based on any research (obviously the working
  group would need to agree upon a definition if this solution were
  adopted).
  
  
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 1999 13:55:44 GMT

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