W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: frames and no frames content

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:10:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4668@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Antony Tennant" <antonytennant@yahoo.co.uk>, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

>> is it acceptable that the noframes content is merely
>> an explanation that frames is required?

Clearly from 1.1 and the technique documents, no.

However, those asserting that 11.4 comes into play and therefore you need a frame-free parallel site are doing so without any authoritative reference.  

To these well intentioned folks, I ask:
If a colleague asks you how to do X in MS Word, do you give them a lecture on Open Source or try to convince them to use HTML instead?

I believe it is a disservice to present standards as requiring more than they do.  I would also like to remind folks of our tradition (since the first days of the Web) that Single-A compliance can be achieved without altering the default graphical visual presentation.

If a site owner asserts that frames or graphical text or something else are essential, we have no business arguing with them about that.

>> Also as a side query, does anyone have any stats on 
>> browsers used that do not understand frames.

> That's the wrong question.
> I think you mean which browsers don't display frames as IE does.

No, it's a good question.  The WAI Techniques documents are all written from the perspective of a mythical browser that *discards* FRAME information and only exposes NOFRAME content.  I find the approach that a text-only browser like Lynx uses to be superior because it gives one *both*.  I wish the Mozilla lineage browsers did the same thing.
Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 13:10:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT