W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: 10.4 Re: Checkpoints 10.4 and 10.5

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 23:19:51 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200105312219.f4VMJpX22176@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> BTW, GWMicro uses Frames correctly. They are well "named" for both screen

Not really.  It only works at all because Lynx has a work around for this
particular sort of misuse of frames.  Earlier versions of Lynx and early
GUI browsers will only display the please upgrade message.  Treating
frames as links was added because of pages like this and completely blank
pages, not because it was a logical consequence of any specification.

> readers and Lynx. If I were them, I would not have used the NOFRAME content,
> but so be it.

I would never use a please upgrade message.  It is seen as condescending
by those who see it, and might be accessing the site using neither
a Microsoft operating system nor a recent Apple one.

The message is incorrect, because you cannot traverse the site without
reading the source on any browser that is not frames aware, this is because
there is no way of finding out what the URLs of the frame contents are,
otherwise.

Missing out NOFRAMES entirely would make this a blank screen page on
some browsers (like many Javascript pages are).

For frames aware, non-frames, browsers, you should use title attributes
to expand on the frame names.  I can't remember if Lynx acts on these.

(I treat any statement about minimum browser requirements as a warning
sign.)
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2001 18:19:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT