Frames (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

dpf -> Frames (3/4/2006 15:09:46)

are there accessibilty issues with frames sites?



d a v e -> RE: Frames (3/4/2006 15:25:04)

some here possibly?
http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php

also i would have thought that navigation between frames could be confusing



spitfire -> RE: Frames (3/4/2006 19:01:21)

Frames/iframes are best avoided. If you want the page to follow the minimum accessibility level, there should be a <noframe> alternative
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frames
Includes surely must be the modern alternative to frames, shared borders or whatever.



womble -> RE: Frames (3/5/2006 5:45:44)

With Uncle B on this one. Includes are the way to go. The time you waste creating your inacessible frames site, then the nice accessible <noframes> version (which doesn't just say "you need a browser that supports frames to view this site"), you could use creating your includes and then going on to do something else much more interesting than <noframes>. Like they say, time is money...



Donkey -> RE: Frames (3/5/2006 11:40:52)

Includes don't replace the most useul feature of frames - the ability to have your navigation always on screen in one frame while you scroll and link to content pages in another frame. You can use CSS positioning (position: fixed) but it doesn't work in good old IE (however there is an other way of achieving the effect in IE - search OF for details).

If you always have a no frames page and duplicate all the content within it, is that not a good compromise?



spitfire -> RE: Frames (3/5/2006 16:29:38)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Donkey
If you always have a no frames page and duplicate all the content within it, is that not a good compromise?

I would say it's about as good a compromise as text-only alternative pages. Try to duplicate anything and errors, omissions and just plain out-of-dateness will creep in to one or other of the copies. Stick with the 'one version of the truth' and if the design/usability of the site absolutely demands a navigation panel visible at all times when scrolling the contents, use css-p of which there are a number of cross-browser compatible examples.

This opinion may be 10 years old, but it is valid, although thankfully frames are not nearly as prevalent on the web as they were w a y back then. Note the problems with bookmarking, printing and search engines.

Personal opinion - I don't like the kind of visual see-saw effect you get with frames or css emulated frames anyway.[:'(]



Donkey -> RE: Frames (3/5/2006 19:05:34)

My personal view (as a user of websites) is that sites with the navigation fixed on the screen are easier to use because;
1) I can navigate with fewer clicks
2) I am always aware of the navigation options available and can therefore navigate in a more intuitive way.
and
3) I don't have the annoyance of being forced to scroll to the top of the page every time I want to go anywhere.

Logic suggests that this makes the site more accessible to the vast majority of users.



womble -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 7:04:09)

Possibly (and this doesn't mean I agree with it), more useable for the reasons you listed Donkey, but certainly not more accessible. I'd say apart from the accessibility issues, the biggest problem with frames from a useability perspective is the problem of bookmarking a specific page - may be more of an issue to some users than others, but still a big useability minus in my book.



spitfire -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 7:20:24)

In view of the lack of the presence of the OP, anyone get the impression this is a set up? [sm=yikes.gif]



caz -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 8:29:09)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spitfire

In view of the lack of the presence of the OP, anyone get the impression this is a set up? [sm=yikes.gif]


My thoughts exactly...

[sm=devil.gif]



dpf -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 9:00:16)

quote:

In view of the lack of the presence of the OP
..sorry - been traveling a bit. I am dealing with a company on a project and happened to notice that their web site claims they are a prominent member of a committee to boost "508" accessibility and it struck me that their usage of frames on their own site went against the grain - i should have said that up front - im well aware of the overall negatives of frames - were in not for the fact that i have a maintenance contract on a frames sites (that i didn't make) , i wouldn't understand them at all. i was just looking for some "ammo" on the 508 handicap accessibility issue



spitfire -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 9:25:54)

Hi Dan
If the link to WCAG Frames I gave earlier doesn't help your 508 cause, maybe something that touches the pockets of your clients will.
This article explains the maintenance = $ problems of compliance by using <noframes> and also goes on to talk about how some search engines have problems indexing frames sites and can, sometimes, offer searchers a load of gobbledegook. The article is eight years old, but the points are still valid and possibly increasingly so as older sites become due for a re-build.

Edit: OOPS you've got a maintenance contract on a frames site, so you probably don't want to bother with the second para [;)]



caz -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 9:50:11)

I retract my allegations unreservedly...it would be so unlike you to be provocative, wouldn't it [8|]



dpf -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 10:28:17)

quote:

it would be so unlike you to be provocative, wouldn't it
oh yes coitenly - i am so non confrontational..hehe



caz -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 10:33:34)

<hehe>



womble -> RE: Frames (3/6/2006 10:45:54)

<hehe> indeedly [;)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125