W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 01:07:17 +0100 (BST)
To: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020426004200.U41439-100000@fenris.webthing.com>

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Access Systems wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm still interested in feedback on how the accessibility proxy deals
> > with frames.
>
> send me a URL of something you think works, I run a minimum standard
> accessible system and can give it a tough test, wish I was smart enough to
> solve the problems

As discussed in
<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2002AprJun/0094.html>
<URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2002AprJun/0140.html>

There is now also a single-page description at
<URL:http://valet.webthing.com:8000/index.html>

When you say give it a tough test, do you mean you have some standard
test cases, or just that you're an unforgiving critic?

The accessibility proxy is still experimental work-in-progress (I only
started hacking on it this week!), but Frames linearisation is a
flagship capability that has worked well in my (few) testcases.
So there are really two things to look at: the fundamental one is
whether what it's doing makes sense; the practical one is to let me
know when you find a URL that breaks it (and there are certainly some).

Most interesting is to combine the two: find URLs where the software
works as-designed but does nothing (or worse) for accessibility.
Those are the ones I really need to tackle!

-- 
Nick Kew

Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 20:07:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:04 GMT