Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | VICUG-L: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List |
Date: | Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:48:36 -0500 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
peter's forward raises a topic about which we ere in Chicago receive
ongoing inquiries. it seems that many want the do's and don't of web
accessibility. One item that has made it on the list of things that some
believe is inaccessible is a design that includes frames. If basic
design standards are used, frames can be used successfully without a text
only link. No url is given, as apparently the site is in development.
However, the inaccessibility of frame-based sites depends on the
deployment of frames. Lynx versions 2.7 and 2.8 support frames. Lynx is
the most popular way blind people who use a non-graphical browser access
the web.
I believe that there is a difference between inconvenient and
inaccessible. Frames in general are inconvenient for the blind computer
user. However it would be a stretch to say that they are
inaccessible--preventing access to the site to the blind computer user by
any reasonable means. Further, if the courts perceived that access to
web sites was a right implicit in Section 35.160 and 36.303 in titles II
and III respectively, I believe that the mere presence of frames would
not be an actionable issue. the court would want to determine the end
result for the end user. this is to say that what is a clear barrier to
access to day may not be so tomorrow and rigid rules of accessibility
may not necessarily apply.
kelly
|
|
|