- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:25:06 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
while we are discussing alternate views, I should point out that there other than screen readers that may not be able to use frames effectively so providing a no frames text version may be a bit of underkill. You may wish to consult with others on this list for input as to what should go into the alternative because a text only page will not be useable by some who also cannot use frames. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Frames and Accessibility Hi Jim, Thanks for the response. I do realise that frames are 'problematic' when it comes to screen readers which is why I am considering providing an alternative view. I think that I will stick to having an accessible framed version and then a non framed/text only version of the pages for people using screen readers. All the content is managed via a CMS so it's only a case of providing the initial template pages. Thanks again for the input. On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:49:33 -0600, Jim Thatcher wrote: > Everybody is down on frames and I think one reason is that screen > readers (because of IE) have not, up till now, properly implemented > frames. Frames provide the best "skip Navigation" imaginable. When you > open content from the menu frame, assistive technology should > automatically be reading the content. Any time you follow a link within > a frameset, content that changes should automatically get focus. IE > doesn't do that, so JAWS didn't either (I have forgotten what > Window-Eyes does). HPR does it right now and JAWS will, in the next > release. > > In all the responses to your question, Julian, I didn't see the one > "required by" Section 508. That is to provide meaningful titles to each > frame that describe the purpose of the frame. As someone said about the > name attribute, "top" is not good but "messages" makes sense. These > titles should be in BOTH the name and title attributes of the frame > elements because some assistive technologies use the name attribute; > some use the title. It is also a good idea to check that your frame > pages have meaningful TITLE elements, something that is often omitted > because they are not usually visible. There is more about frames in the > web course, http://jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm#webcourse4.2 . > > With all the bad vibes that frames are receiving in this thread; please > understand that there is nothing in WCAG AA that require you not to use > frames. >
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 13:43:17 UTC