>> What WCAG1 AAA standard forbids requiring a frame capable browser? As Phil points out, my question was off topic. >> I like how Lynx handles frames. >> I find the exposed messages about "this site requires a frame >> capable browser" to be quite ironic. >> Why not just list the purpose of the different of frames and the >> URLs to them in the NOFRAMES content area and be done with it? > Seems clear enough. "Sorry, you need frames" isn't an equivalent. I don't believe I suggested that. The WAI techniques regarding frames and Checkpoint 1.1 hardly implies that the provision of complete alternative site version is necessary. I don't understand why commenters on this IG list are recommending such an approach as anything other than their own personal preference. 10.3 Writing for browsers that do not support FRAME http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#noframes The above sample links to another html page, but that is primarily for brevity of the example. The whole text-only contents could just as easily be there.Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2005 18:15:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 September 2007 14:03:58 GMT