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: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 05:07:05 -0700
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5640116C5F7@namail4.corp.adobe.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

 >   You are indeed mistaken. WCAG 1.0, level 'A', checkpoint 
> 1.1 requires
>   that text /equivalents/ be provided for frames - that is equivalent
>   content/navigation.

This is not clear in the recommendation.  The HTML techniques suggest
this <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#noframes> but I'm not sure
how this guideline suggests this.

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via
"alt", "longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images,
graphical representations of text (including symbols), image map
regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic
objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets,
spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user
interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video.
[Priority 1] 

I don't get how frame (or frameset, really) elements are "non-text
content".  

>   The title issue you mention is likely WCAG 1.0, level 'AA', 
> checkpoint
>   12.2.

The WCAG analog for 508's treatment of frames is: 12.1 Title each frame
to facilitate frame identification and navigation. (P1)

AWK
Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 12:07:28 GMT

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