MSTC website

jake wrote:

In message <398ss8F5s6o2tU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.



Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the
right side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not inherently
an accessibility problem, but some accessibility solutions don't
*support* frames, so in reality it's still somewhat of an
accessibility problem.

And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?
As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but two
groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups would
have problems.


The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use doesn't
support frames. As I was saying.


Modern AT UAs that support the visually disabled work just fine with
properly written frames; I'm not sure why you should think otherwise.

Do Braille displays tend to support frames?

In message <39b77kF61davfU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398ss8F5s6o2tU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.



Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the
right side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not
inherently an accessibility problem, but some accessibility
solutions don't *support* frames, so in reality it's still
somewhat of an accessibility problem.

And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?
As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but
two groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups
would have problems.


The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use doesn't
support frames. As I was saying.
Modern AT UAs that support the visually disabled work just fine
with properly written frames; I'm not sure why you should think
otherwise.

Do Braille displays tend to support frames?

No idea. Is that what you're having problems with?

regards.
--
Jake

jake wrote:

In message <39b77kF61davfU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ss8F5s6o2tU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.




Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the
right side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not
inherently an accessibility problem, but some accessibility
solutions don't *support* frames, so in reality it's still
somewhat of an accessibility problem.


And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?
As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but
two groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups
would have problems.



The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use doesn't
support frames. As I was saying.

Modern AT UAs that support the visually disabled work just fine
with properly written frames; I'm not sure why you should think
otherwise.


Do Braille displays tend to support frames?

No idea. Is that what you're having problems with?

We're talking about the level of accessibility of frames, not whether I,
of all the people in the world, happen to be having problems with them
in the user agent I happen to use.

In message <39b76dF61davfU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398smpF5s6o2tU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398jpaF5uudbtU3 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <3964ggF5urk89U2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark
specific pages.


'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites' --> (create in) --> OK


Most of us expect a bookmark to go to the page we bookmarked. But
sure, you're way is fine if every time you bookmark a page
somewhere inside a web site, you don't mind if the bookmark
actually leads only to the site's home page.


The same url, but with the appropriate (bookmarked) content
displayed -- is it not?


No. A bookmark *is* a URL. A single URL. When you bookmark a site
with frames, the bookmark is the URL of the frameset, regardless of
the pages that are appearing in the content frames at the moment.
When you use the bookmark later, you go to the frameset, which loads
the default pages defined in the FRAME tags.
Not so.

To make sure I wasn't being a total doofus, I decided to check. And you
know what--with IE6, you're right. Which I hadn't realized, and that's
at least a decent feature that IE has for working around ill-advised
site-construction practices. But you know what else? Of the browsers I
have, only IE does this. Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera don't.

Yes. That's so.
I guess that if bookmarking a complete frameset was a big deal, then
Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, etc. would have provided that facility;
obviously it's not ;-)

And even IE doesn't get around the problem of passing the URL on to
someone *else* when you're trying to refer them to information on the
site.

Sure. But do you really need to?

If you take Adrienne's site as an example, all you need to tell them is:

Go visit www.whatever and look at 'justification'.

The user goes to www.whatever. They click on 'J'. They click on
'Justification' (or whatever their equivalent to 'click' is).

Not too much of a show-stopper ;-)

A user *could* bookmark the content itself (in some browsers,
anyway) by right-clicking on the frame and choosing a Save Bookmark
option. But when you use that bookmark later, *only* the content
will appear, filling the entire browser. No frames. No banner. No navigation.
Nope.

Yup. I just did it in IE. Try it.

OK. What I meant to say was that if the content page has a "No menu?
Click here to return to the main site." link at the bottom, then
accessing the bookmarked page will provide the navigation back to the
frameset page.

Let's take a simple example:
I have a 3-frame display:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/EX01X.JPG (39k)

It was easy enough to use an existing site that uses frames. For
example, http://www.nagb.org/.

You can never find a frames-based site when you want one ;-)

After initial loading, I click on a link that loads the content of
Frame 1 into frame 2.
I bookmark the context: 'Favorites' --> Add to Favorites -->( name
'AC' into directory 'ACSAVE').
Now. I look at a lot of other sites, but want to look at the
original site again.
If I now enter 'Favorites' --> ('AC' in directory 'ACSAVE'), what do
I see?

This is all in IE, right?

Yep. The world's favourite browser ;-)

Try another browser so you can see what many other users are getting.

Sure.

But unless your site is really badly written then accessing it shouldn't
present any kind of accessibility problem.

The worst kind of frames-based site for accessibility that I find is the
one where they use frames for layout purposes.

Have a look:
http://www.vindolanda.com/

And to add insult to injury:
"This website uses frames unfortunately your browser does not support
them."

Regards.



--
Jake

In message <39b6n2F602mmtU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <398rr7F5vqkdcU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:


OK. I'll bite. How else would you duplicate the functionality of
frames -- without involving the server?


I didn't say without involving the server--and neither did you. And
it doesn't matter, because you can still duplicate the functionality
perfectly well by including the same code in every file, painstaking
as that may be. Or you can use a preprocessor that will add the
duplicate code into every file for you before you put it on the server.
It's still not duplicating the functionality. If it did, I would be
able to fill a section of the screen with content chosen randomly --
and do it off-line if I chose to.

Huh?

Besides, why would I want to use a 'pretend-frames' approach when
it's far easier to use the real thing?

Because of all the reasons why frames aren't a good idea.

Greatly exaggerated ;-)

regards

--
Jake

In message <Xns961461850BB46arbpenyahoocom (AT) 207 (DOT) 115.63.158>, Adrienne
<arbpen2003 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> writes

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writing in news:398jkqF5uudbtU2
@individual.net:

jake wrote:

If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames
;-)

There is no functionality provided by frames that can *only* be
provided
by frames.

Actually, there is. The user can resize a frame. A scrolling div cannot
be resized. For example, http://www.scriptassist.com/sample.asp uses a
scrolling div, and http://www.scriptassist.com/online/index.asp which
uses frames (use login usenet password usenet).

This is a scriptwriters reference, and in the offline and online version
frames were used for this very reason. An author can resize the frames to
see more of the references page. The samples were done not using frames
because of search engines, bookmarking, etc. The samples page does let
the user know the "frames" are not resizeable.

As a side note, this was a b***h to reproduce.

Interesting example ... but have you got some kind of timer running? I

was listening to your site in HPR, only to find your first page kept
reloading itself.

regards

ps. You've styled your 'skip navigation' link as { display :none ; }
-- most AT UA's will ignore it.

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page...aderVisibility
http://www.jimthatcher.com/skipnav.htm

--
Jake

In message <39e0jcF60m78lU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:
In message <39b77kF61davfU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ss8F5s6o2tU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398ju3F5uudbtU4 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

Using frames is not inherently an accessibility problem.




Driving on the left side of the road is not inherently a safety
problem. It is a problem only if everyone else is driving on the
right side of the road.

So: using frames in an agent that supports frames is not
inherently an accessibility problem, but some accessibility
solutions don't *support* frames, so in reality it's still
somewhat of an accessibility problem.


And what 'accesibility solutions' would they be, then?
As frames don't provide an accessibility problem to the visually
disabled and to those people that cannot use a mouse (to name but
two groups) I'd be interested in knowing what disability groups
would have problems.



The visually disabled, if the hardware or software they use
doesn't support frames. As I was saying.

Modern AT UAs that support the visually disabled work just fine
with properly written frames; I'm not sure why you should think
otherwise.


Do Braille displays tend to support frames?
No idea. Is that what you're having problems with?

We're talking about the level of accessibility of frames, not whether
I, of all the people in the world, happen to be having problems with
them in the user agent I happen to use.

I'm not sure I see what your point is?

Are you saying that you know that Braille display users are having
problems -- or is this just a red-herring you're throwing in?

regards.


--
Jake

jake wrote:

In message <39b6n2F602mmtU2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:

In message <398rr7F5vqkdcU1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes

jake wrote:


OK. I'll bite. How else would you duplicate the functionality of
frames -- without involving the server?



I didn't say without involving the server--and neither did you. And
it doesn't matter, because you can still duplicate the
functionality perfectly well by including the same code in every
file, painstaking as that may be. Or you can use a preprocessor that
will add the duplicate code into every file for you before you put
it on the server.

It's still not duplicating the functionality. If it did, I would be
able to fill a section of the screen with content chosen randomly --
and do it off-line if I chose to.


Huh?

Besides, why would I want to use a 'pretend-frames' approach when
it's far easier to use the real thing?


Because of all the reasons why frames aren't a good idea.

Greatly exaggerated ;-)

Well, let's see. Largely nonexistent bookmarking support, inability
simultaneously to link to a particular page AND to have the navigation
available when you get there, search engine problems (equivalent to the
problem mentioned problem), non-universal support.

About the search engine thing: Google the words

nagb naep frameworks achievement

and click the link for a document titled Publications with the host
www.nagb.org, and tell me what you see. Where's the navigation? Why,
it's here:

http://www.nagb.org/

but Google doesn't have any way to give you a link that provides you
both the Publications page *and* the navigation frame.

So there are reasons why it's a disservice to users, and reasons why
it's a disservice to yourself. If you don't care, so be it.

jake wrote:

Yes. That's so.
I guess that if bookmarking a complete frameset was a big deal, then
Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, etc. would have provided that facility;
obviously it's not ;-)

That's a silly argument: if it's what's being done, then it must be right.

And even IE doesn't get around the problem of passing the URL on to
someone *else* when you're trying to refer them to information on the
site.

Sure. But do you really need to?

Oh, good grief. Right, it's *so* rare for people to send links to pages
on other web sites to others, or to post them on their own web sites. I
can tell you've spent lots and lots of time on the Web.

<trolllonk>

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk>
writing in news:4vxU5LHEBdMCFwmI (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk:

In message <Xns961461850BB46arbpenyahoocom (AT) 207 (DOT) 115.63.158>, Adrienne
arbpen2003 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> writes
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writing in news:398jkqF5uudbtU2
@individual.net:

jake wrote:

If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames
;-)

There is no functionality provided by frames that can *only* be
provided by frames.

Actually, there is. The user can resize a frame. A scrolling div cannot
be resized. For example, http://www.scriptassist.com/sample.asp uses a
scrolling div, and http://www.scriptassist.com/online/index.asp which
uses frames (use login usenet password usenet).

This is a scriptwriters reference, and in the offline and online version
frames were used for this very reason. An author can resize the frames to
see more of the references page. The samples were done not using frames
because of search engines, bookmarking, etc. The samples page does let
the user know the "frames" are not resizeable.

As a side note, this was a b***h to reproduce.

Interesting example ... but have you got some kind of timer running? I
was listening to your site in HPR, only to find your first page kept
reloading itself.

Yes, one of the frames reloads until the user logs on. If nothing else,
it's annoying enough so you logon quickly.

regards

ps. You've styled your 'skip navigation' link as { display :none ; }
-- most AT UA's will ignore it.

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page...aderVisibility
http://www.jimthatcher.com/skipnav.htm

Thanks for the links. I'm going to do something else.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share