RE: Frames sites.

Hi, Joe
I believe your point that a blind person focuses on one window or one
frame at a time is quite valid.  That's why the approach I used in
my browser with showing a single frame at a time and letting the user switch
between frames seemed to work pretty well.  Providing a menu with
information about each frame helps the blind user choose the
appropriate frame.

Scott


> 
> Hello Nir,
> >  
> I have followed your discussion on frames and I think I agree with the
> essence  of your arguments.  I would like to offer my perspective, which
> is that of a totally blind user using a screen reader with voice.
> Referring to your recent posting:
> 
> 	>>This is what I mean by "visual in nature." Frames have
> usability >>advantages
> 	>>only if the user can have a direct multiple *view*.
> 
> 	JR:  This is where I have a slight disagreement.  With a voice
> output screen reader, I am focused on one "window" or frame at a time.
> It makes no difference to me if my screen displays 4 windows on the
> screen side-by-side or if each window is maximized and displayed one on
> top of the other.  I have to focus on only one at a time.  But I can
> step horizontally, as you put it, with just an ALT-TAB (for windows) or
> a CONTROL-TAB (for frames or dialog pages).  You might say that I have
> an "indirect multiple *view".
> 
> 	The point I want to make is that I can benefit from a frame
> structure if it would work like the windows do.  Two things that are
> missing with my browser/screen reader (MSIE 3.2/WinVision97 4.1) frames
> is something to let me know that I am dealing with a frame structure and
> some identification of the frame when I focus on it.  For example, If I
> have several apps open but have gotten "lost", I can orient myself with
> a screen reader hot key that verbally summarizes what windows are open.
> For frames, an equivalent might be to tell me how many frames are
> presented.
> 	When I ALT-TAB among apps, my screen reader identifies the app I
> am passing or stopping on by verbally giving the title.  For frames, a
> sequence number (eg., "frame 1", "frame 2", etc.) might be acceptable
> because a "title" might not be that useful (I would probably still have
> to read a bit of it to really know if this was a frame I wanted to be
> in).  An exception would be the frame that contained the index.  That
> would be useful to know.  The suggestion offerred in a different post to
> have the browser focus on the changed frame when the link in the index
> is clicked strikes me as a really terrific idea.
> 
> 
> Joe Roeder

Received on Friday, 6 March 1998 15:13:02 UTC