W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1998

Re: Frames sites.

From: Mike Burks <mburks952@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 09:10:27 -0500
To: "WAI IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Harvey Bingham" <hbingham@ACM.org>
Message-ID: <01bd4a9b$f222dfc0$7903450c@mike-b>
I agree this is one of the most inaccessible sites I have ever seen.  In
addition it takes to long to load if it loads at all.  Basically a terrible
site all around....any chance we could put up a list of inaccessible sites
and include this one on it?

Just a thought,

Mike Burks

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my
employer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@ACM.org>
To: WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Sunday, March 08, 1998 2:54 AM
Subject: RE: Frames sites.


>At 00:09 1998/03/08 +1100, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>...
>>
>>(My pet example of Framed sites I hate is www.melbourne.org and the most
>>depressing thing about it was that they asked my advice, and then ignored
>>it completely. Lynx users will have a particularly bad time with it, but
>>it is easy to demonstrate the problems by reference to such a site)
>>
>
>Thanks for the pertinent URL.
>
>There is no <body> content. Before it is a <noframes>, with the message:
>go get a browser that supports frames, from Netscape or Microsoft.
>
>Bobby analysis finds no problems with no content, so this is worth 4 stars!
>
>The source tool comment taking credit for producing this accessibility
>disaster is:
>
><!-- Lotus Domino Web Server Release 4.51 (Gold, Build 202 on Windows
>NT/Intel) -->
>
>Regards/Harvey Bingham
>
Received on Sunday, 8 March 1998 09:14:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:39 GMT