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

Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0204261420120.29422-100000@tux.w3.org>
Potentially it would be cheaper to fix lynx. I am not convinced - doing it
right is normally extremely easy. But to fix lynx, and search engines, and
phone browsers, and so on, doesn't see like a very smart option.  With
respect to frames lynx in fact does not implement the full HTML 4.01
specification, giving access to all frames by title, and name, and to the
noframes content - I believe the only thing missing is access to the
longdesc, but I have not seen that widely implement either.

I would suggest thtat the 508 standard falls short of making things work for
people by suggesting that a title is sufficient - to navigate a frameset
sufficiently complex to have justified its existence it is worth having a
proper, noframes-based alternative in my opinion. This is not a complex
technical problem to resolve on teh authoring side, and there would appear to
be many benefits to doing so - such as ensuring the author considers a
reasonable and clear navigation method for the site whether or not the
two-dimensional effect of frames is available.

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Phill Jenkins wrote:




  > Access Systems wrote:
  >
  >   I run Lynx on linux.   it is a very basic system that is generally
  > accepted as the basic accessible system (as per sec 508) that needs to
  > provided access.

  > Nick Kew wrote:
  >
  > Yes, I know it well.  And indeed, a framed site without adequate
  > noframes content can be most annoying in it.

  The Access Board guidance regarding FRAMES does not mention NOFRAMES, only
  titles.

  See http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(i)

  Lynx on Linux is not mentioned as the basic accessible system either.

  Wouldn't it be less expensive to fix Lynx's current inability to support
  the complete HTML standard that to ask the many web developers to provide a
  noframes version?

  Of course that wouldn't fix all the other non-accessibility problems with
  frames <frown>

  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: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 14:25:12 GMT

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