W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

Disposition of frame title (from WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 12.1)

From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:33:45 -0400
Message-ID: <A0666B3C59F1634290FDC88674D87C3202125132@1WFEMAIL.ottawa.watchfire.com>
To: "WAI GL \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Yvette, Ben, and I took an action item [1] to discuss the mapping of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 12.1 [2] "Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation." It was proposed this should map to:

* WCAG 2.0 Guideline 2.4 L1 SC 1[3] "Navigational features can be programmatically identified" and 
* Guideline 2.4 L2 SC 4 [4] "The destination of each programmatic reference to another delivery unit is identified through words or phrases that either occur in text or can be programmatically determined". 

In the survey [5] there wasn't agreement about this mapping, because people were not sure if frame title should be treated the same as link text which clearly maps to L2 SC 4, and because they thought frame title should be level 1 while link text was acceptable at level 2.

I have to say, in our discussion we ended up where we started. We considered mapping to Guideline 1.1 and 1.3 as well as 2.4, we considered promoting L2 SC 4 to Level 1, and we considered splitting the SC. In the end, we decided it was best to map both to L1 SC 1 and L2 SC 4. Obviously the Priority 1 mapping takes precedence, allowing identification of navigation features (frames being a navigation feature and the title attribute being the mechanism of identification). We thouught it was also important to map to L2 SC 4, about identifying the destination of references to delivery units (frames being a reference to a delivery unit - the framed document - and the title attribute identifying or labeling the reference) because people would be confused if it was not mapped to this SC, particularly since the SC was written with the express intent of mapping this WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint to it.

We did not unanimously believe this was the best solution, but we did all agree it was the best compromise. I think this addresses the comments raised in the survey and propose we stick with the proposal in the survey.

Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/28-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-frame-titles
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-structure
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-refs
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/mapping/results#xftitle


--- Signature ---

Michael Cooper
Accessibility Product Manager, Watchfire
1 Hines Rd Suite 200, Kanata, ON  K2K 3C7  Canada
Tel: +1 (613) 599-3888 x4019
Fax: +1 (613) 599-4661
Email: michaelc@watchfire.com
Web: http://www.watchfire.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 17:33:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT