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

Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:27:14 -0500
To: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8C0EDEAC.917F1F12-ON86256BAA.007614C3@pok.ibm.com>

      About the plug-ins, viewers, and or players - most of all of them are
free, most of them are available on many platforms, and some of them even
have accessible versions to their user interface if not also the content.

>> > ...  but I mention the Linux to
>> >illustrate that any solutions MUST be OS neutral and not depend on
>> >proprietary software that is not provided free.
>> I don't understand what free has to do meeting the 508 or W3C standards.
>it does state in 508, that if something is required to view or use a site
>a link must be provided to allow a download at no additional cost.

The actual 508 standard only says: [1] "1194.22 (m) When a web page
requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the
client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a
plug-in or applet that complies with 1194.21(a) through (l)."
Nothing there nor in the rest of the 508 guidance about "no additional
costs" except for the case of documentation.  So the 508 claim that
plug-ins must be provided at no additional costs is misinformation. Meet
the 508 software standards part - yes, free - no.

>> also don't understand why something must be OS neutral to meet a
>because a standard cannot be proprietary

More misinformation.  The 508 standard actually implies the use of
"proprietary standards when it says: [2] 1194.21 (f) "Textual information
shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying text.
The minimum information that shall be made available is text content, text
input caret location, and text attributes."

>> By the way, since LYNX supports FRAMES, if authors put usable titles on
>> them, would that end the debate about frames?

Great! that is the minimum standard in my opinion.

>> Also if LYNX supported JavaScript, would that end the debate about
>> JavaScript?
>so far as I know Lynx does not support JavaScript

Exactly my point.  So why aren't you (and JavaScript naysayers) putting
pressure on the Lynx developers to add support for JavaScript?  My point is
that it would be more cost effective to add JavaScript support to Lynx that
to re-design all the sites that already use JavaScript.  JavaScript is
already a published standard in ECMA Script.  So the standard is public,
just not supported by Lynx.  Lynx does not support all the requirements in
the W3C User Agent Accessibility Guidelines either.   Sounds like a good
grant proposal.

[1] 508 plug-in guidance
[2] Text via OS functions

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 18:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:19 UTC