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

RE: the question is NOFRAME content

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:39:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA569@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregory, I donít disagree with your position, I just donít see how it is supported by WCAG 2.0.

> the point is that NOFRAMES MUST be required when frames are used

Which SC says this?

> the relationship between frames is widely implemented in a visual
> conceit, 

To whit, I think one of the current techniques mentions adding title="Top Navigation" to name="TopNav" because name cannot use spaces.  That really has to be corrected.

> but if i am using a web-capable non-visual cell phone

Is that really the best example you can come up with as to why robust NOFRAME content is important for accessibility?

> i want content, and the only way to ensure alternate browsing in a
> non-visual environment is to mandate the provision of robust NOFRAMES
> content, and THAT my friends, is a screaming, flaming, indisputable P1

This is why I raised the question.  I do not find the above position to be well supported by WCAG 1.0 Single A nor WCAG 2.0 Triple A.  I am not sure what, if anything, should or could be done about it.
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 00:40:23 GMT

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