Re: Remarks on Checkpoints

If only one of NOFRAMES or TITLE is strongly required, then I suggest
NOFRAMES. In a non-trivial example, it may be desirable to provide more
significant information in NOFRAMES than simply a list of frames.

My standard 'how to use NOFRAMES' for an index and content frame (with
optional pointless banner) goes like this:
In each content page, include enough navigation links that it can stand
on its own if the rest of the Frameset is missing.
In the NOFRAMES you need to include an entry to the site. Since people
don't want to go through a splash page, (which you can provide with a
frames setup) you should either put the content of your index in, or
combine it with your splash page.

This provides for a mechanism which allows voice systems to cope with
navigation without having to explain a frame based site, or requiring the
'frame-navigation two-step' (back, select new index item) which Lynx uses
to cope with a poor system. It is access, but it is second rate. Where
there is a choice, we should be pushing for the first class solution. If
all you want to provide is the title information there is little
difference. If you want to provide good access, then there is a way that
works for some situations - TITLE, relying on design and an emergency
strategy -  and a way that works for all situations - NOFRAMES, relying on
design but no emergency strategy.


On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
  It doesn't require the use of NOFRAMES if the UA is smart enough to
  read the content of the FRAME elements.
[example]  
  To me, either one or the other is required, but not both.

Received on Friday, 8 January 1999 04:23:27 UTC