Re: Is it a problem that WCAG 2.0 doesn't require paying attention to NOFRAME content? from Tina Holmboe on 2006-08-08 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from July to September 2006)

From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 03:37:34 +0200 (CEST)
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <tkrat.7e2a585cd6865eef@greytower.net>

On  7 Aug, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:

>  >   You are indeed mistaken. WCAG 1.0, level 'A', checkpoint 
>> 1.1 requires
>>   that text /equivalents/ be provided for frames - that is equivalent
>>   content/navigation.
> 
> This is not clear in the recommendation.  The HTML techniques suggest
> this <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#noframes> but I'm not
> sure how this guideline suggests this.

  Would you, please, explain how "Provide a text equivalent for every
  non-text element ... this includes ... frames ... " is not clear on
  requiring a text equivalent for frames?

  It might be better if "a linear equivalent for frames" had been the
  wording, but I see nothing unclear about the checkpoint.

-- 
 -       Tina Holmboe                           Greytower Technologies
       tina@greytower.net                      http://www.greytower.net
        +46 708 557 905

Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 01:37:44 UTC