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: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:02:55 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF535790CF.353D317F-ON86256BAB.00524284@pok.ibm.com>


>A position that states "there is a solution that works on some platform,
>THEREFORE all is OK" is inherently unsatisfactory, for all the usual
>reasons of lock-in.

All is not OK, that is not my position.  But if something is accessible on
one platform, it is accessible on that platform.  Now we need to get it
accessible on the other platforms.  The opposite position is what I'm
hearing, that if there is not a solution on every platform, then it can't
be accessible.  It's not "all OK" until all is accessible on every
platform, but my position is about making forward progress and providing
solutions on as many platforms as inexpensively as I can.

>   Moreover, a solution that requires an OS that is
>?itself costly and will only run on expensive modern hardware is
>utterly inacessible to many, for obvious reasons.

Unaffordable yes, inaccessible no.  I'm using a more technical definition
of accessibility.

<clipped>

>>OTOH, I happen to believe frames can be well-used, too.  It's just
>>a shame it happens so rarely.
>
>> Also if LYNX supported JavaScript, would that end the debate about
>> JavaScript?
>
>I take it you're not responsible for security on your corporate network?
>

No I'm not responsible for security, but my security experts haven't told
me to turn off JavaScript capability in the last couple years.  I was told
to get a firewall at home though.  But I digress by talking about security
and what some could consider costly home security firewall - not
accessibility.

>More generally, I'd say what Lynx or any other individual browser supports
>is of little relevance from the authoring end, unless an author is tempted
>to develop "for" it *at the expense of* standards compliance.
>
>Nick Kew

I only know a couple folks who author for standards compliance sake alone.
And I agree that *at the expense of standards* is not wise either.  I would
guess that most authors and most authoring tools take into account what the
individual browser supports.  What I tell authors and tool developers all
the time is to consider all the individual browser support issues,
including the ones that individuals with disabilities use.  I believe that
to determine compliance with "standards", one needs to test with Opera, IE,
Netscape, Mozilla, Lynx, Home Page Reader, JAWs, Window Eyes, Zoom Text,
and voice command & control in ViaVoice.  I don't test everything with
every product, but recommend them all.  It's when I determine that a web
page feature works in most of these tools that I can safely conclude that
it's not the web page that has the problem, but the tool.  For example, a
well designed and titled frames site seems to work in all of them - no
priority 1 need for NOFRAMES.

Phill
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 14:16:34 GMT

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