Thread Subject: Re: Group D: 22(i) and NOFRAMES

Note

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

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:

All:
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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Katie
Haritos-Shea
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
Mailing List.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JulSep/0094.html

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst

703-371-5545

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University