W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: Is it a problem that WCAG 2.0 doesn't require paying attention to NOFRAME content?

From: Gregory Rosmaita <gregory.rosmaita@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:27:25 -0400
Message-ID: <656f2a620608040827q202c6708qcdf73d9e8eb9c98d@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>

bruce wrote, quote
trivial NOFRAMES content is perfectly fine.
unquote

on the contrary - trivial NOFRAMES are NEVER fine -
they usually only tell the user to get a frames capable
browser

the baselline NOFRAMES should replicate the contents
of the navigation frame in a simple format - e.g. as an
OL or UL and MUST include an H1 identifying to what
site the list of links is linked and where in the world wide
web the user has found him or herself.

but, and this needs to be shouted from the rooftops
YES there is a -- and ALWAYS will be -- a need for
NOFRAMEs and those NOFRAMEs MUST be as robust as
possible - no null alt text allowed here!

gregory.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with
one's own opinion.  -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devils' Dictionary_
---------------------------------------------------------------
                        Gregory.Rosmaita@gmail.com
          Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
         VICUG NYC: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 15:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT