W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Frames and Accessibility

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:25:06 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <00c001c2be58$26b327b0$6501a8c0@handsontech>

while we are discussing alternate views, I should point out that there other
than screen readers that may not be able to use frames effectively so
providing a no frames text version may be a bit of underkill.  You may wish
to consult with others on this list for input as to what should go into the
alternative because a text only page will not be useable by some who also
cannot use frames.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Frames and Accessibility



Hi Jim,

Thanks for the response.

I do realise that frames are 'problematic' when it comes to screen
readers which is why I am considering providing an alternative view.

I think that I will stick to having an accessible framed version and then
a non framed/text only version of the pages for people using screen
readers.

All the content is managed via a CMS so it's only a case of providing the
initial template pages.

Thanks again for the input.

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:49:33 -0600, Jim Thatcher wrote:
> Everybody is down on frames and I think one reason is that screen
> readers (because of IE) have not, up till now, properly implemented
> frames. Frames provide the best "skip Navigation" imaginable. When you
> open content from the menu frame, assistive technology should
> automatically be reading the content. Any time you follow a link within
> a frameset, content that changes should automatically get focus. IE
> doesn't do that, so JAWS didn't either (I have forgotten what
> Window-Eyes does). HPR does it right now and JAWS will, in the next
> release.
>
> In all the responses to your question, Julian, I didn't see the one
> "required by" Section 508. That is to provide meaningful titles to each
> frame that describe the purpose of the frame. As someone said about the
> name attribute, "top" is not good but "messages" makes sense. These
> titles should be in BOTH the name and title attributes of the frame
> elements because some assistive technologies use the name attribute;
> some use the title. It is also a good idea to check that your frame
> pages have meaningful TITLE elements, something that is often omitted
> because they are not usually visible. There is more about frames in the
> web course, http://jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm#webcourse4.2 .
>
> With all the bad vibes that frames are receiving in this thread; please
> understand that there is nothing in WCAG AA that require you not to use
> frames.
>
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 13:43:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT