W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: Frames

From: Judy Schnitzer <sitekre8@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:52:55 -0800
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <>

Respectfully, Charles, I think the site you mention is a good example of one of the things wrong with a framed site, especially for people with low vision who are looking at the site and using a larger than average font and low screen resolution, rather than using a screen reader or speech browser, or possibly for someone with an orthopedic disability, for whom scrolling is more difficult. 

The top and bottom frames take up about a half of the page, leaving little for the content. Someone using a large font sees very little of the content at the same time, which I find makes it much more difficult to get a good feeling for the whole page. Even using a more average font size, like 12 point, it's still necessary to do a lot of scrolling. I'm guessing that some people with some kind of orthopedic disability or joint pain would rather do less scrolling. 

It certainly messes up large images, such as the one you see if you click "playful". Even using 640 x 480 resolution, I think this graphic would fit on one screen if there were no frames. With the frames, I can see only about one-third at a time. Even if I were using 800 x 600, I wouldn't be able to see all of it. 


At 09:51 PM 2/15/2000 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile :
Well, since Jim hasn't really provided anything to banish frames, let me take
a bit each way...

In addition to having well-titled frames, which can provide some guidance ...

for an interesting example of a reasonably wll-done framedd site, try
http://www.rachelmello.com (personally I'm not a fan of "splash pages", but that's not the question at hand...)

Judy Schnitzer, Internet Marketing Consultant
Customized eMarketing to match your needs
Web Site Development & Tune-up, Promotion
Research, Writing, & Training
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2000 02:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:07 UTC