Re: Remarks on Checkpoints

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


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 -
phone: * +1 (617) 258 0992 *
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative -
545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA

Received on Thursday, 7 January 1999 17:34:52 UTC