W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: title for the frame

From: <tina@greytower.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:17:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <200306232317.h5NNH9402090@localhost.localdomain>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 23 Jun, Joe Clark wrote:

>> > cryptic - which is a P1 checkpoint). But I can't see anything in WCAG
>> > that makes it compulsory to use the title attribute.
>> The wording is 'title', but I interpret it to mean using the name attribute
>> as well. Surely we should do both.
> You mean use title="" and saddle graphical-browser users with a tooltip
> that follows their cursor everwhere in the frame? Perhaps not, right?

   The wording is "title", and the background information on the
   checkpoint in question says: "For instance use the TITLE attribute".
   Rather clear-cut I'd say.

   As for the tooltip ... remember, what a user-agent, graphical or
   melodious, does to a certain piece of information in order to present
   it to the user, is not something that should in any way be used to
   argue *for* or *against* using that structure.

   The NAME attribute has one use. TITLE has another. The WCAG mentions
   TITLE since that is what it is *for* - "advisory information".

> name="" is sufficient.

   Not by the WCAG - and unless and until someone comes up with another
   standard for accessibility, for better or for worse we are stuck with
   the WCAG. It has gotten itself into several goverment bodies - and as
   such it would be a really None Too Good Idea to go

     "Oh, we support the WCAG. But not 12.1, because we don't want users
      of graphical browsers to see tooltips ... "

   as that would, and quite correctly, return you a

     "Non-compliant. Go back and do it right"

   whether or not it is *functional* or not. The NAME attribute is not
   required by WCAG. TITLE is - well, titling is required, using TITLE
   to do it is suggested.

> Does anyone really think frames are a pressing issue these days? There are
> certainly cases where they are a valid design choice, but their usability

  I have never seen such a case since 1993. Care to help out with an
  example ?

> and accessibility issues have caused them to fall out of favour. Meeting
> the WCAG requirement narrowly also means you meet it completely and
> functionally. Use name="" and Bob's your uncle.

  Use both, and regardless of family connections you'll be doing it

> Oh, I almost forgot. The only browsers I know of that cannot understand
> frames are Lynx and W3M. That is *it*.
> We're still talking about this?

  Of course. Frames are still not a good choice for presenting
  information even if user-agents such as Lynx is hacking around the
  problem - just 'cause the Lynx developers are bloody nice and willing
  to put effort into their product doesn't mean that frames *work*.

  As for browsers (aka user-agents) not understanding frames: Google ?

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 19:17:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:16 UTC