Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables (fwd)

On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Do you guys collect stuff like this?

I'm far too ignorant of frontpage to comment on tools for working with it.

However, I have supplied tools to companies using FP, including a
custom DTD designed for accessibility, and validation software.
To date we have two household-name companies using FP *and* requiring
validation of all Intranet pages to exacting standards.

The DTD started its life as rather strict, and was watered down only
by negotiation with an FP-colleague, who also developed guidelines
for the users ("can-do this; but that whole menu is disallowed, ...").
I actually got away with enforcing ALTs, FRAME titles, and a NOFRAMES
section in every frameset, without undue resistance.

Legislation certainly helps here.  The companies in question both have
legal departments who have pointed out the danger of a lawsuit under
(UK) disability discrimination law, in the event of an employee being
unable to access something on the intranet.  With that in mind,
compulsory validation to a strict DTD enforced by Site Valet
looks more attractive!

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:19:06 -0500
> From: Kathleen Anderson <>
> Subject: Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables
> Resent-From:

So this is from w3c-wai-ig?  I guess I should crosspost back to it.

> "Bailey, Bruce" wrote:
> >
> > The other accessibility problem I know of with FP2K is image maps.  The UI
> > provides no mechanism for putting ALT text on the hot spots.  I haven't
> > tried this, but does FP do frames?  If so, what does it do for the frame
> > labels and the noframes section?

If FP can be tamed, there's hope yet :-)

Nick Kew

Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 01:35:43 UTC