- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:10:46 -0400
- To: "'Antony Tennant'" <antonytennant@yahoo.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Antony Tennant wrote: > I would like to canvass opinions on the requirement and use of > noframes content. I have searched the archives but couldn't find any > specific details. > > If a section of a site (e.g an form, calculator etc) requires the use > of frames due to the way it has been built, I understand the > available markup to make the frameset meet W3C guidelines and that > noframes content should included. > > My question is: where frames are unavoidable due to technologies > used, infrastructure etc, is it acceptable that the noframes content > is merely an explanation that frames is required. Checking the W3C > guidelines it merely states to use noframes content but doesnt > indicate if this must be a version of the same content/functionality > that doesnt rely on frames. > Priority 1 - 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-267-1983 / 1-866-932-4878 (North America)
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 14:19:38 UTC