- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 01:07:17 +0100 (BST)
- To: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Access Systems wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Nick Kew wrote: > > > > > > > I'm still interested in feedback on how the accessibility proxy deals > > with frames. > > send me a URL of something you think works, I run a minimum standard > accessible system and can give it a tough test, wish I was smart enough to > solve the problems As discussed in <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2002AprJun/0094.html> <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2002AprJun/0140.html> There is now also a single-page description at <URL:http://valet.webthing.com:8000/index.html> When you say give it a tough test, do you mean you have some standard test cases, or just that you're an unforgiving critic? The accessibility proxy is still experimental work-in-progress (I only started hacking on it this week!), but Frames linearisation is a flagship capability that has worked well in my (few) testcases. So there are really two things to look at: the fundamental one is whether what it's doing makes sense; the practical one is to let me know when you find a URL that breaks it (and there are certainly some). Most interesting is to combine the two: find URLs where the software works as-designed but does nothing (or worse) for accessibility. Those are the ones I really need to tackle! -- Nick Kew Available for contract work - Programming, Unix, Networking, Markup, etc.
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 20:07:23 UTC