Thread Subject: Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Dec 07 2006 4:25 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I read Gregory to be enfatically in favor of coding for the use of
pages in browsers that are not supportive of frames. I submit that
if I read the message below correctly, if you are going to require
users to use certain browsers, you'd better be prepared to foot the
bill to make that happen.. I further submit that a requirement on
users of this type starts us down a slippery slope. Broadband anyone?
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
After reading the post Katie references, here is a thought.
Can we simply say that a browser must support frames to be considered
Section 508 compliant? If someone is not using a compliant browser, no
matter what coding is used on the page, the information and data aren't
going to get transported to the individual with a disability.
Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Katie
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES
Email from Gregory Rosmaita on NOFRAMES about WCAG 2 to WAI Guidelines
* katie *
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst
- Next message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES"
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES"