Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Lynx question: frames and <object>

[Al Gilman]

to follow up on what Matt Ackeret said (not in this order):
> 
> So this is why we get _usable_ frames sites(*) and "you need a frames capable
> browser to use this site" messages all of the time?
> 
> (*) Well, you're basically "going into" each frame one by one, but it
> still works on a lot of sites.
> 
> I think the <NOFRAMES> stuff should not be shown, since Lynx does support
> frames, sort of.

For sites that pay attention to what they put in the NOFRAMES
section, it can be a more comprehensible approach to the site
than the FRAME titles where you may not find anything mnemonic.

I am immersed in the world of access by the blind.  From there
the perspective is that frames access is marginal.  That's why I
referred to the discussion on the WAI-IG list.  So I don't want
Lynx to take away anything that may be helping.

So IMHO while what is done now is messy, there is material loss
of function if we try to neaten it up, short of real styles
support.  Anything simple we do to clean up how it looks will
pull the I-way further out from under somebody.

Al