Thread Subject: Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal
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: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 7:55 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Bekure, Blene W.: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Previous message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
5. I am wondering if we should delete the frames requirement 1194.22(i).
At least for screen readers, definitive frame naming is helpful, but no
longer a major issue in terms of site navigation and comprehension.
DC: Ironic that we've been concerned about accommodating people who are
deaf-blind but would unintentially toss out the much larger population of
people with both vision and learning limitations. No, I wouldn't make more
of this standard than it is, but I most certainly wouldn't drop it. It
definitely provides meaningful orientation until screen readers become smart
enough to stop reading this invisible text altogether. Wish we could
actually prohibit the use of frames, but of course that's way out of bounds.
- Next message in Thread: Bekure, Blene W.: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"