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

Re: A question of titles

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:09:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0102011707150.31713-100000@tux.w3.org>
I strongly disagree. When the user comes to the frameset, the title attribute
of the referenced page is not yet avilable. In addition, it is quite likely
that if it describes the page itself, it does not adequately describe what it
does in the frameset. This whole requirement is for bare mnimum accessibility
- instead of providing some reasonable navigation content as provided by the
specification, it happens that most user agents wil present the name (and
sometimes the title) attribute on individual frame eleemnts within the
frameset. In a simple framest, this is often enough to enable people to
understand something about what is being offered.

The title eleement of the thing at the other end of a link doesn't do this,
since it is at the other end of the link.

Charles McCN

Charles McCN

On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Phill Jenkins wrote:

  Jim wrote:
  >
  >  If each frame page has a (good, informative) title element, but there is
  no
  >  name attribute or title attribute on the frame elements within the
  frameset
  >  element, do you think that satisfies 12.1?

  I believe the answer  - yes it is satisfied or not it isn't - depending on
  the technology being referenced in the frame.

  For example, in HTML the <frame element doesn't need a title= attribute if
  the <title element is on the html page being referenced by the <frame
  element.  In other words, in Jim's specific case it is accessible and meets
  the intent of the guideline.  If there were user agents or assistive
  technologies that presented the outline view of the frameset by using the
  title attribute on the <frame element, then I would have to disagree with
  Jim - but there are none that I know of so it's a non-issue.  There are
  some that use the title= attribute if the <title element isn't there on the
  html page. But I haven't found a developer yet that put the title=
  attribute on without always having <titles on the html pages as well - so
  its quite redundant.

  However, if the <frame element references a non-html file, such as .jsp
  (java server pages), a .nsf (lotus notes served page), a .asp (Microsoft
  active server page), etc. or, more to the point, a media type not supported
  by the user agent or not discernible by the user, then the title= attribute
  is the only means to provide access to the intent of the frame.  The
  example used in the HTML techniques
  [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frame-has-html-src] refers to
  always using html file types because that is the only way to provide the
  alt text for an image.  I think this needs to be rethought by the WCAG
  working group.  It seems very redundant to have an alternative <noframes>
  to <framesets>, and have the title= attribute on the <frame> element, and
  have only html file types so that the alt= attribute can be added to
  images.  I would think that the title=attribute should be sufficient to
  describe the intent (as does the alt= on the <img>) of an image type file
  being referenced by the <frame>.


  Regards,
  Phill


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2001 17:09:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT