W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: (HTML tech)Alternative content for iframe element

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:10:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0410132302310.19967@aristotle.multipattern.com>

By the way, Sailesh, your mailer doesn't word- or line-wrap, and, combined 
with top-posting and no whitespace between paragraphs, this makes your 
messages supremely difficult to read.

> Section 14.7 of the HTML techniques for WCAG 2 [1] suggests that 
> alternative accessible content should be given between start and end 
> tags of the iframe ele ment.

iframe isn't inaccessible. Why do we need "alternate accessible content"?

iframe merely points to another HTML document. If that document's 
accessible, what's the problem?

> The browser does not display this content and nor is assistive 
> technology able to access it.

It's not supposed to; the spec requires that content inside 
<iframe></iframe> never be rendered if the iframe src document can be. 
It's like summary on table.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#edef-IFRAME>
    The information to be inserted inline is designated by the [238]src
    attribute of this element. The contents of the [239]IFRAME element, on
    the other hand, should only be displayed by user agents that do not
    support frames or are configured not to display frames.

(Unhelpfully, the spec says "should" and not "must." It's possible to make 
a user agent that renders the src HTML file *and* the alternative.)


> So I guess this technique is not workable.

It's been superseded by events and in any case represents WCAG 1.0 
thinking-- penalize any use of any HTML feature that might make a page 
interesting and a bit less boring.

iframes are rarely used except for advertising and have a wealth of 
possible accessibility features.

<http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#h3-3150>

> advise against use of longdesc which is ok. But there is need t o 
> recommend use of title attribute for iframe. [1]

Why? Why not _name_? Or both, where permitted?

BTW, iframe is like del and ins: It can be block or inline.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2004 23:10:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT