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: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 14:31:16 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA55E@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> on the contrary - trivial NOFRAMES are NEVER fine -

Philosophically, I agree with you.  But such an ideal was disavowed by 508, and I havenít had cause to pay the issue much attention for six years now.

Am I mistaken that sites with trivial NOFRAMES content can be WCAG 1.0 Single A compliant?  I believe that benchmark merely requires that frames have meaningful titles.  It is a P2 checkpoint that requires meaningful NOFRAMES content.

Who, exactly, is disadvantaged by the current state of affairs?
What UA do they have?

> they usually only tell the user to get a frames
> capable browser

We are agreed as to what constitutes trivial NOFRAMES content.  I find it perfectly ironic that I am most likely to be reading those messages in a perfectly frame-capable browser, like Lynx.

> the baselline NOFRAMES should replicate the contents
> of the navigation frame in a simple format

As I understand it, this is only required by WCAG 2.0 if and only if framesets are *not* in the baseline.  I am hoping someone will correct me if I am wrong about this, I have misunderstood some other big picture concepts before!

A site owner, or body empowered with oversight, will have to be incredibly enlighten to pick a small tight baseline (i.e., HTML 4.01 strict / XHTML 1.0 *only*) and to appreciate that a such stand *improves* accessibility while still allowing other technologies.  The majority of sites that now pay attention to WCAG 1.0 now permit code soup and a wide variety of plug-ins and applets.  Why would that change with WCAG 2.0?  If they bother with baselines and conformance claims, they are quite likely to include by name all the technologies they are already using.

I have not read anything in the WCAG 2.0 draft materials that strongly encourages a restrictive baseline.  While coding using only valid HTML makes it easier to meet 2.0 SC, there are no SC that are satisfied merely by having a restrictive baseline.

> 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.

Which SC and/or techniques does the above refer to?

> 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!

How should this be reflected in WCAG 2.0?  As I outlined on my previous post in this particular thread, I do not think WCAG 2.0 does much to advance such a position.  I am fairly neutral regarding if this is a good thing or a bad or thing.  I believe I am just making an objective observation.

Enlighten content authors will continue to pay attention to NOFRAME content, or to avoid framesets altogether (mostly just because they have a bad reputation).  I donít find anything in WCAG 2.0, aside from the aforementioned advisory techniques, that encourages (let alone rewards) robust NOFRAME content.  Am I wrong about that?
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2006 18:31:57 GMT

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