W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Evaluating an iframe-based website

From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:46:45 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4BDDA5.10509@ramoncorominas.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Ok, let's hypothesise and put specific contents, just to see the 

Situation 1: I have a page www.domain.com that has a logo and the main 
menu in the header, and also a common footer. Then I have an <iframe 
id="content"> where every single content is loaded. Let's say that I 
have 4 different simple contents: "/home.htm", "/products.htm", 
"/contact.htm" and "/a11y.htm". Let's suppose that only the 
"/contact.htm" page (that will be loaded inside the iframe) is not 
accessible (and that I can change the <title> dynamically using scripts).

My first thought is that I can exclude the URI 
"http://www.domain.com/contact.htm" from the Conformance Declaration and 
assume the rest of the website is considered accessible, even if the 
whole website shares the root URI. However, my concern is that I cannot 
give separate URIs for the other 3 "accessible" pages, but the main one, 
and thus I am not sure if I can "exclude part of a page", that is, the 
"/contact.htm" iframe-based content. Indeed, there are two paragraphs in 
the definition of "Web page" that seem to prohibir this possibility:

"Note 2: For the purposes of conformance with these guidelines, a 
resource must be "non-embedded" within the scope of conformance to be 
considered a Web page."

My interpretation is that I cannot then exclude the URI of the embedded 
content from the Conformance Declaration.

And, more importantly:

"Example 2: A Web mail program built using Asynchronous JavaScript and 
XML (AJAX). The program lives entirely at http://example.com/mail, but 
includes an inbox, a contacts area and a calendar. Links or buttons are 
provided that cause the inbox, contacts, or calendar to display, but do 
not change the URI of the page as a whole."

Although I don't have an AJAX application, the result is more or less 
the same: I have a single URI that is not changed while I use the site, 
so it seems that I have to consider the single-URI website as a whole in 
terms of conformance.

Situation 2: I have a website that is built using templates. Each page 
has a single URI, but all pages share a common <iframe> where a Twitter 
widget is loaded that is not accessible. Of course I have a different 
URI for the widget content, but it is loaded within the specific URIs of 
each page of the website. Due to CR #2 I cannot exclude this content. 
That's all. But then, what is the difference with the previous case? I 
can see it in terms of "real" accessibility, but formally it is not so 
clear to me.

Thanks in advance,

Jonathan wrote:

> [Ramon wrote]
>> My question comes because I feel that I cannot consider the iframe-based
>> content as separate from its parent, because it could lead to failures
>> that would not exist when this content is in context (for example, heading
>> structure, links purpose, multiple ways...). So I cannot separate the
>> iframe from its context, but at the same it sounds a bit hard to me that
>> one
> You should be able to locate the URI for that frame from the DOM and the
> crub trail  and indicate the site except that page meet the conformance
> level criteria.
> While I agree that the page cannot be taken out of its context as far as
> reporting - for normative testing purposes I would generally test the each
> iFrame was a page and the containing page as a separate page.  During
> functional testing the pages together would be taken into consideration.
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 19:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC