«

in alt.html, jake wrote:
> In message <UmSod.46532$>, rf
> <rf@?.invalid> writes
> >Samuël van Laere wrote
> >
> >> Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
> >> http://www.lbt.nl/
> >
> >Not.
> >
> >Frames.
>
> Not an accessibility issue - although better <title></title> entries
> would be appreciated.

Sure it is accessibility issue. Accesibility issue is not something being
totally unaccessible, but something that causes problems on access. Blind
people can read images of text, with some tools. That surely donät make
images of text accessible

> >Navigation in a different frame to
> >the content.
>
> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
> away.

You have very stange idea of accessibility.


> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
> >the latetest microsoft browser.
>
> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames

Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.

> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.

I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
possible, but 4 is impossible.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

In message <> , Lauri
Raittila <> writes
>in alt.html, jake wrote:
>> In message <UmSod.46532$>, rf
>> <rf@?.invalid> writes
>> >Samuël van Laere wrote
>> >
>> >> Also I would like your opinions regarding this website's accessibility:
>> >> http://www.lbt.nl/
>> >
>> >Not.
>> >
>> >Frames.
>>
>> Not an accessibility issue - although better <title></title> entries
>> would be appreciated.
>
>Sure it is accessibility issue.

Perhaps you'd like to explain, please?

>Accesibility issue is not something being
>totally unaccessible, but something that causes problems on access.

If it's an 'accessibility' issue, then the technique being used should
make it difficult or impossible for a person to access the information
easily. How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

> Blind
>people can read images of text, with some tools.

You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

>That surely donät make
>images of text accessible

Pardon?.
>
>> >Navigation in a different frame to
>> >the content.
>>
>> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
>> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
>> away.
>
>You have very stange idea of accessibility.

Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
modern AT user.

The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
as using frames for layout.

>
>
>> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
>> >the latetest microsoft browser.
>>
>> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames
>
>Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.

Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.

>
>> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
>> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
>> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
>> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.
>
>I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
>possible, but 4 is impossible.

Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
screen-reader
>
Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
convinced otherwise.

I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
crowd

regards.

--
Jake

in alt.html, jake wrote:
> In message <> , Lauri

> >> >> http://www.lbt.nl/

> >> >Not.
> >> >
> >> >Frames.

> >Sure it is accessibility issue.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to explain, please?

> If it's an 'accessibility' issue, then the technique being used should
> make it difficult or impossible for a person to access the information
> easily.

Exactly.

> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.

1) you make assumption of modern UA.
2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
2.
3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.
4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
five.
5) It is not easy to print the page
6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.

+ All the other normal problems:
http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
popular today.

> > Blind
> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
>
> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?

Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.

> >That surely don't make
> >images of text accessible
>
> Pardon?.

If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
read/hear it. That is because it is very hard to do.

> >
> >> >Navigation in a different frame to
> >> >the content.
> >>
> >> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
> >> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
> >> away.
> >
> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
>
> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
> modern AT user.

Again, you say modern UA. Thewre is no browser in which I dont' find
frames problem. And I have good vision and I am very good at using those
browsers. Many browser also don't mark links visited until you refresh
the page, which makes navigation frame use pain...

> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
> as using frames for layout.

Which is what is done on the page in question. And, I have seen one case
where frames were suitable, and it was not traditional webpage, but web
based (useless) application

> >> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about installing
> >> >the latetest microsoft browser.
> >>
> >> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames

> >Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.
>
> Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
> off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.

Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?

> >> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
> >> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
> >> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
> >> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.
> >
> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
>
> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
> screen-reader

Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...

> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
> convinced otherwise.

I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.

> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
> crowd

I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

In article <kcapd.47512$>,
rf@.invalid says...
> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > rf@.invalid says...
> > > I get a heap of rubbish about flash. What use is flash to a blind
> > > person? Said person would be long gone at this point.
> >
> > Blind people can't hear?
>
> Good point
>
> However, even when I plugged said site into a browser that does have flash
> installed I still didn't hear anything.

Also good point


--
-=*Tn*=-

In message <> , Lauri
Raittila <> writes
[snip what we agree]

>
>> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
>> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.
>
>1) you make assumption of modern UA.
I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:

Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
as the browser):
http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
will do to test keyboard navigation.).

>2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
> 2.
(I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
much 'bargain-basement' here.)

>3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.

Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
'tab' key. I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
keys. I can go to another main page with 'return'.

Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
keyboard?

>4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
>for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
>such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
>five.
Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.

I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
user should consider using an assistive technology UA?


>5) It is not easy to print the page

I've just printed a page without difficulty.

>6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.

I've just saved a page for offline use.
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

>+ All the other normal problems:
>http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
>http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....."
>http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html

But none of which addresses accessibility.

>
>Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
>people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
>popular today.

Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.

>
>> > Blind
>> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
>>
>> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
>> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
>> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?
>
>Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
>Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.

If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
it. Do you know what it's called?
>
>> >That surely don't make
>> >images of text accessible
>>
>> Pardon?.
>
>If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
>accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
>read/hear it.

>That is because it is very hard to do.

Not sure I take your point.

<img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
will they not?
>
>> >
>> >> >Navigation in a different frame to
>> >> >the content.
>> >>
>> >> Yes -- but that's not an accessibility issue. In fact, this can be quite
>> >> useful as from anywhere in the main content, the menu is only a 'toggle'
>> >> away.
>> >
>> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
>>
>> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
>> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
>> modern AT user.
>
>Again, you say modern UA. Thewre is no browser in which I dont' find
>frames problem. And I have good vision and I am very good at using those
>browsers. Many browser also don't mark links visited until you refresh
>the page, which makes navigation frame use pain...
>
>> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
>> as using frames for layout.
>
>Which is what is done on the page in question. And, I have seen one case
>where frames were suitable, and it was not traditional webpage, but web
>based (useless) application
>
>> >> >The first thing a blind person would hear is some complaint about
>> >> >installing
>> >> >the latetest microsoft browser.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. That only applies to any UAs that don't support frames
>
>> >Also all browsers that have frames disabled, like Opera.
>>
>> Sure, but why would 'a blind person' be browsing with frames switched
>> off? I'm not sure I follow your logic on this one.
>
>Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?

Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.
>
>> >> The first thing that a blind person using a typical AT UA would hear
>> >> would be 'This frame is empty' (frame 1); they can then ask for a list
>> >> of the four frames to see what's there. If the menu frame wasn't simply
>> >> a container for a flash object they could be happily on their way.
>> >
>> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
>> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
>>
>> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
>> screen-reader
>
>Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
>possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...

Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible

>
>> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
>> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
>> convinced otherwise.
>
>I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.

Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.
>
>> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
>> crowd
>
>I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.

Thank you for a most interesting and informative discussion.

regards.
>

--
Jake

in alt.html, jake wrote:
> In message <> , Lauri
> Raittila <> writes
> [snip what we agree]
>
> >
> >> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
> >> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.
> >
> >1) you make assumption of modern UA.
> I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:
>
> Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
> as the browser):

So, lets ignore the orginal question...

> http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
> will do to test keyboard navigation.).

This is ugly hack that has one 100% frame, with other, frame inside.
First noframe content links to other *frameset*

Page also has all most problems said in URLs I give you. My arguments
were for properly made frames site. I don't know any frames site that is
done well, so I can't point one to you.

> >2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
> > 2.
> (I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
> comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
> any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
> combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
> much 'bargain-basement' here.)

Well, it is not inaccessible. The point is not that something is
inaccessible, but that something is less accessible than something else.

> >3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.
>
> Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
> from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
> 'tab' key.

Maybe. In opera, only spatial navigation is as easy as normally.
Findinline and normal next/previous link is needs frame to be focused.

> I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
> keys.

And if the navigation needs scrolling too. For example if font size
required is twice as big? After all, that happens on 15" and 1600*1200
displays. Those are quite popular on high end laptops. And of course
people with nonperfect eye sight.

> I can go to another main page with 'return'.

And how do you scroll right frame?

> Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
> keyboard?

I can find several things I am not able to do to navigate there. I can
navigate anywhere, but it is much harder.

For example, to get links link on normal page, I ca access it by typing
<ctr + contextmenu> l i n <enter>
On this page, I need either to focus right frame first, or use spatial
navigation. As I don't remember the key to change frame I can't do that
easily, and spatial navigation don't work.

Also, as focus happens to be on main frame after loading, A and Q keys
seems to not work as next/previous link function as usually.

> >4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
> >for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
> >such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
> >five.
> Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.
>
> I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
> user should consider using an assistive technology UA?

Well, that doesn't help, as you use frames, and so need to find correct
frame at some point. For person needing 10cm letters, it will take some
time to find right frame (even if they were named sencibly: in case of
odas, they are called leftframe and mainframe.)

> >5) It is not easy to print the page
>
> I've just printed a page without difficulty.

Again, your argument is "Works for me, must be accessible"

> >6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.
>
> I've just saved a page for offline use.

I did not say it is impossible.

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> >+ All the other normal problems:
> >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
> ".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
> what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....."
> >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html
>
> But none of which addresses accessibility.

You seem to use entirely your own meaning for word accessibility.

> >Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
> >people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
> >popular today.
>
> Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.

Accessibility is more than usability. If something has lousy usability,
it also has bad accessibility. Good usablilty can sometimes have bad
accessibility, but extremily rarely other way around.


> >> > Blind
> >> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
> >>
> >> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
> >> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
> >> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?
> >
> >Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
> >Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.
>
> If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
> displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
> it. Do you know what it's called?

No. But blind person cuould save image, use OCR, replace image in
webpage. Would not be hard to build such thing. The point is that it
makes no sence, as accessible website would include alt-text.

> >> >That surely don't make
> >> >images of text accessible
> >>
> >> Pardon?.

> >If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
> >accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
> >read/hear it.
>
> >That is because it is very hard to do.


> Not sure I take your point.

The point is that almost nothing in internet is totally inaccessible. The
point is weather something is accessible easily enaugh to be useful

> <img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
> will they not?

Good thing. You finally got something. Same with frames, all browsers
work perfectly fine whitout them.

> >> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
> >>
> >> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
> >> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
> >> modern AT user.

Accessibility is about everybody, not about modern AT users.

> >> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
> >> as using frames for layout.
> >
> >Which is what is done on the page in question.

And with your new example. It actually uses nested framesets.

> >Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?
>
> Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.

Of course. That is because such things don't exist.

> >> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
> >> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
> >>
> >> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
> >> screen-reader
> >
> >Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
> >possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...
>
> Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
> population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
> Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible

Accessibility is not about sizable populations

> >> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
> >> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
> >> convinced otherwise.
> >
> >I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.
>
> Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
> assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.

Well again need of that ****ing advanced technology reader. The
accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
problems also want to access pages.

> >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
> >> crowd

I think you have never actually read all those articles about frames all
over net.

> >I did use the net when frames were popular, I have to agree.
>
> Thank you for a most interesting and informative discussion.
>
> regards.

*plonk*

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

in alt.html, jake wrote:
> In message <> , Lauri
> Raittila <> writes
> [snip what we agree]
>
> >
> >> How does the use of frames in this context provide accessibility
> >> problems to a user of a modern AT UA? An example would help.
> >
> >1) you make assumption of modern UA.
> I did say 'AT' UA, but anyway:
>
> Let's take a typical(?) 'framed site' to address your points (using IE
> as the browser):

So, lets ignore the orginal question...

> http://www.odas.org.uk/ (I'm sure you could think of others, but this
> will do to test keyboard navigation.).

This is ugly hack that has one 100% frame, with other, frame inside.
First noframe content links to other *frameset*

Page also has all most problems said in URLs I give you. My arguments
were for properly made frames site. I don't know any frames site that is
done well, so I can't point one to you.

> >2) it is not easy to use frames in lynx when there is 4 of them, or even
> > 2.
> (I have Lynx installed, but almost never use it .... so I can't really
> comment except to say that last time I tried it I didn't seem to find
> any part of a framed site inaccessible. Obviously not the easiest
> combination of browser/site to work with ... but we're talking pretty
> much 'bargain-basement' here.)

Well, it is not inaccessible. The point is not that something is
inaccessible, but that something is less accessible than something else.

> >3) It makes keyboard navigation around page harder on most UAs.
>
> Actually, navigation is quite easy from a keyboard. I can move focus
> from links on one frame (menu) to links on another (main) with the
> 'tab' key.

Maybe. In opera, only spatial navigation is as easy as normally.
Findinline and normal next/previous link is needs frame to be focused.

> I can scroll the main page using Home/End/ and the arrow
> keys.

And if the navigation needs scrolling too. For example if font size
required is twice as big? After all, that happens on 15" and 1600*1200
displays. Those are quite popular on high end laptops. And of course
people with nonperfect eye sight.

> I can go to another main page with 'return'.

And how do you scroll right frame?

> Have you found anything on the odas site that you can't access by
> keyboard?

I can find several things I am not able to do to navigate there. I can
navigate anywhere, but it is much harder.

For example, to get links link on normal page, I ca access it by typing
<ctr + contextmenu> l i n <enter>
On this page, I need either to focus right frame first, or use spatial
navigation. As I don't remember the key to change frame I can't do that
easily, and spatial navigation don't work.

Also, as focus happens to be on main frame after loading, A and Q keys
seems to not work as next/previous link function as usually.

> >4) It makes it harder to scroll pages. And that is major problem, if you
> >for example need 10cm high letters to read it. (I know a person that need
> >such) - let alone the fact that one letter at time is shown, instead of
> >five.
> Scrolling? Use the arrow keys.
>
> I'm not sure that I completely understand your other point. Maybe the
> user should consider using an assistive technology UA?

Well, that doesn't help, as you use frames, and so need to find correct
frame at some point. For person needing 10cm letters, it will take some
time to find right frame (even if they were named sencibly: in case of
odas, they are called leftframe and mainframe.)

> >5) It is not easy to print the page
>
> I've just printed a page without difficulty.

Again, your argument is "Works for me, must be accessible"

> >6) It mkaes harder to save page to offline use.
>
> I've just saved a page for offline use.

I did not say it is impossible.

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> >+ All the other normal problems:
> >http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil
> >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html
> ".........I have changed my opinion somewhat: people who really know
> what they are doing can sometimes use frames to good effect, ....."
> >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605a.html
>
> But none of which addresses accessibility.

You seem to use entirely your own meaning for word accessibility.

> >Usage of frames is not on top 10 web design mistakes after 1996, as
> >people very quickly understood it is not good idea, and it is not very
> >popular today.
>
> Maybe. But I'm not sure how that reflects on accessibility.

Accessibility is more than usability. If something has lousy usability,
it also has bad accessibility. Good usablilty can sometimes have bad
accessibility, but extremily rarely other way around.


> >> > Blind
> >> >people can read images of text, with some tools.
> >>
> >> You'd have to define 'blind' for me. People with *some* (limited) sight
> >> could, of course, use a magnifier ... but how does a person with *no*
> >> sight 'read images of test'? With what tool?
> >
> >Yes. Did you not know that there is software that reads text from images.
> >Often comes bundled with scanners, not with web browsers.
>
> If you do know of software that will read the text on images being
> displayed on a browser screen, then I'd be interested in hearing about
> it. Do you know what it's called?

No. But blind person cuould save image, use OCR, replace image in
webpage. Would not be hard to build such thing. The point is that it
makes no sence, as accessible website would include alt-text.

> >> >That surely don't make
> >> >images of text accessible
> >>
> >> Pardon?.

> >If you have image that contains text "foo" on webpage, it is not
> >accessible, even if there is software that makes it possible for blind to
> >read/hear it.
>
> >That is because it is very hard to do.


> Not sure I take your point.

The point is that almost nothing in internet is totally inaccessible. The
point is weather something is accessible easily enaugh to be useful

> <img SRC="xxx.xxx" ALT="FOO" > ........ all AT UA's will speak 'FOO',
> will they not?

Good thing. You finally got something. Same with frames, all browsers
work perfectly fine whitout them.

> >> >You have very stange idea of accessibility.
> >>
> >> Try thinking about how you'd go about it practically, and then all will
> >> become clear. Navigation via a second frame is just not an issue to a
> >> modern AT user.

Accessibility is about everybody, not about modern AT users.

> >> The only issue would be the use of too many *unnecessary* frames -- such
> >> as using frames for layout.
> >
> >Which is what is done on the page in question.

And with your new example. It actually uses nested framesets.

> >Because of the accessibility problems the frames cause?
>
> Shouldn't be a problem with a well-designed frames-based site.

Of course. That is because such things don't exist.

> >> >I don't think anyone likes to navigate 4 frames using lynx. 2 frames is
> >> >possible, but 4 is impossible.
> >>
> >> Not sure how many sight impaired people would use Lynx with a
> >> screen-reader
> >
> >Well, it would make sence... And if I am not mistaken, emacs w3 was
> >possible to mkae speak up webpages years ago...
>
> Quite possibly. But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
> population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
> Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible

Accessibility is not about sizable populations

> >> Navigating that site (assuming that the navigation menu worked) is
> >> hardly an issue to an AT user ....... but I'm quite happy to be
> >> convinced otherwise.
> >
> >I am not convinced about that, but it is not the only problem.
>
> Have you ever tried navigating a 'sensibly'-framed site with a modern
> assistive technology reader? You might care to try it sometime.

Well again need of that ****ing advanced technology reader. The
accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
problems also want to access pages.

> >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
> >> crowd

I think you have never actually read all those articles about frames all
over net.
Or maybe you just don't know any modern browser (I see you did use tab
for keyboard navigation).

Ignorance of tools is one problem in accessibility. There lots of people
that can't read small text out there that don't know what to do when IEs
font size thingy don't work.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

In message <> , Lauri
Raittila <> writes

[snip lot's of interesting discussion, even if the responses don't
always necessarily tally with the points raised .]

>
>*plonk*
>
Fine by me. I understand it must be difficult to try and stay focused.

regards.
--
Jake

In message <> , Lauri
Raittila <> writes
>in alt.html, jake wrote:
[snip it all again -- so good you had to say it twice, eh? ]

>
>Ignorance of tools is one problem in accessibility. There lots of people
>that can't read small text out there that don't know what to do when IEs
>font size thingy don't work.
>
"Tools" --> "Internet Options" --> "Accessibility" --> "Ignore font
sizes....."
>
But as you've killfiled me, I guess you'll never know ....

regards.
--
Jake

Lauri Raittila wrote:
> in alt.html, jake wrote:
>>
>> But I remain to be convinced that there's a sizable
>> population of visually impaired people accessing the www with a talking
>> Lynx ....... assuming that it's possible
>
> Accessibility is not about sizable populations
> accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
> problems also want to access pages.

Accessibility is also not just about visually impaired users.
Are framed sites easily accessible on mobile devices? The answer isn't
so important as remembering to look at other facets of accessibility,
not just assistive technology.

>> >> I'm afraid you've been too heavily influenced by the 'frames are evil'
>> >> crowd

Methinks you, jake, have been too heavily influenced by your own testing
with HPR. It is not the be-all of accessibility tests, you know. And you
are probably not a "typical" HPR user, either.

BTW, I do think frames probably are more a usability problem than an
accessibility one, but that is more than enough reason to avoid them.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.