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 19:53:00 -0700
Message-ID: <53744A0A1D995C459E975F971E17F5640116CA65@namail4.corp.adobe.com>
To: <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Sorry, hit enter too early -- full reply is here.

>   Would you, please, explain how "Provide a text equivalent for every
>   non-text element ... this includes ... frames ... " is not clear on
>   requiring a text equivalent for frames?
> 
>   It might be better if "a linear equivalent for frames" had been the
>   wording, but I see nothing unclear about the checkpoint.

What is unclear is what needs the text equivalent.  The frame element?
The frame element's content?  To me it seems that this is referring to
the need to provide an equivalent for the frame container, not the
content.  This is further supported by the existance of the following
example in the WCAG 1.0 document:

"For complex content (e.g., a chart) where the "alt" text does not
provide a complete text equivalent, provide an additional description
using, for example, "longdesc" with IMG or FRAME, a link inside an
OBJECT element, or a description link."

So for basic frames you provide noframes but for complex frames you
provide longdesc?  Doesn't seem quite right.  

In fact, the only place that noframes is mentioned in WCAG 1.0 is in 6.5
(Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative
presentation or page. [Priority 2]).  I, like Bruce, agree that using
noframes well is important, but I'd like to be able to point out to
developers "here's why you need to do it" if in fact it is required by
the guidelines. I feel like I can make the case in WCAG 1.0 but am not
sure about WCAG 2.0.

AWK
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 02:53:25 GMT

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