- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:34:50 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Using Frames is not intrinsically bad. It is perfectly possible to create a site which uses frames extensively, yet causes no accessibility problems. It requires the use of NOFRAMES to give access to the content pages. If there is (for example) a navigation frame and a main content frame, then being able to get to a single page, and use back to get to the navigation frame is access. Many websites were designed this way - that's one of the reasons frames became popular. A more useful approach is to repeat the navigation system (or in a large document part of it) within the content pages. On the other hand, there is no such mechanism for TABLE. Either your browser understands it, (eg JAWS + IE4.xx) or it doesn't (Lynx 2.8, JAWS + Netscape 3 I believe). If it doesn't, then you are reasonably likely to be served incomprehensible gobbledygook. If there are a group in this situation, then there is a prima facie case to answer before we drop the Priority below 1. (The ansewr lies in our appraoch to legacy problems, I think) Charles Nir wrote: > "A.13.5 Until user agents and screen readers are able to handle text > presented side-by-side, all tables that lay out text in parallel, > word-wrapped columns require a linear text alternative (on the > current page or some other). [Priority 2]" > > This is a very dangereous checkpoint since it > encourages authors to use frames, and then Daniel wrote: How come ? As long as it's not a P1, I'm fine. --Charles McCathieNevile - mailto:charles@w3.org phone: * +1 (617) 258 0992 * http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative - http://www.w3.org/WAI 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA
Received on Thursday, 7 January 1999 17:34:52 UTC