Re: Important: Issues relating to checkpoint 2.1 raised during 30 March teleconference.

NOFRAMES as Alternative Equivalent

One point advocated by gregory is that NOFRAMES content be available
through the UI and that this should be a requirement for complying with
Checkpoint 2.1.  Whether we change the wording of checkpoint 2.1 or not
both the new version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 for the Macintosh and
Opera 3.60 for Windows allow themselves to be configured to render NOFRAMES
content instead of the frame content.  These examples could be included in
the techniques document for the checkpoint.

I prefer Ian's poposal[1] to reduce the wording of the checkpoint 2.1 to
just talk specifically about alternative equivalents through the UI, since
we already have a checkpoint that requires all content be available through
an API.  The accessibility of other content rendered through the User
Interface visually or aurally is already accounted for in other
checkpoints.  If there is something not included in the other checkpoints
that was assumed to be part of 2.1 we could propose to add another
"clarifying" checkpoint.  But I don't think we have one right now.  If
anyone can think of one please send it to the list as soon as possible.

Jon

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JanMar/0550.html

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Monday, 3 April 2000 16:49:00 UTC