RE: frames and no frames content

>> 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 UTC