Sometimes frames make good sense to use. I created a web page checker / validator using an XHTML frameset for the results: http://www.websemantics.co.uk/pilotworkshop/page_checker/
I believe the use is both semantic and accessible. It was created as an example of framesets rather than as a tool. Mike 2k:)2 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Mike Foskett Web Standards, Accessibility & Testing Consultant Multimedia Publishing and Production British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta) Milburn Hill Road, Science Park, Coventry CV4 7JJ Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 02476 416994 Ext 3342 [Tuesday - Thursday] Fax: 02476 411410 www.becta.org.uk ____________________________________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: heretic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 May 2005 12:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WSG] frames hi, > Can anyone tell me if/when it is 'OK' to use frames? Since the W3C > spec still includes them, I wondered (if) when it was considered legit > to employ them - on a par with tables, which are avoided at all costs, > except when displaying 'tabular data'. So I assume the W3C have > included frames in the spec for some good reason? > An example URL (or two) would be great. > Please don't turn this into a rant (or worse) - it's a serious question. Frames are not inherently evil, it's more that people tend to use them very badly. It's sort of fashionable to abhor frames, too ;) I've heard it all, since I am currently stuck with them at work. You'll find that a lot of major portal applications and content management systems tend to produce framesets (or use them for their admin interface), so it's not like they're about to vanish. On top of that, a frameset which validates will not look right. eg If you want invisible frame borders you're basically stuck with invalid documents (if anyone can show a technique to the contrary I'd be very happy :)). The key problem is that you have to leave off the DOCTYPE, however you can mark everything up so that it *works* even though it doesn't validate. The key things to do are 1) keep the frameset as simple as possible, 2) ensure you title each frame appropriately [http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#frame-names], 3) avoid nesting framesets, and 4) make sure the <noframes> includes links to all framed documents. if nothing else, search engine bots generally don't read framesets, they read the noframes. No doubt I'll need to retreat to a fireproof bunker now ;) cheers, h -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ****************************************************** ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
