Good accessibility?

[jake]

Accessibility is not about sizable populations
accessibility is not only for totally blind. Persons with slight vision
problems also want to access pages.

Accessibility is also not just about visually impaired users.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. It's important that a site is accessible by as many people as
possible.

Are framed sites easily accessible on mobile devices?

Can't say I know. They probably are if looking at them in Opera's
small-screen mode is anything to go by.

What's been your experiences of looking at well-written framed-sites on
a mobile device?

The answer isn't
so important as remembering to look at other facets of accessibility,
not just assistive technology.

Indeed. Essential.

Methinks you, jake, have been too heavily influenced by your own testing
with HPR.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so please expand ....

It is not the be-all of accessibility tests, you know.

Obviously.

But I do think that it's a pretty good test as a 'typical' assistive
technology program for the vision-impaired, dyslexic, or
reading-impaired, etc.

Perhaps you could tell me why you think this isn't the case?

And you
are probably not a "typical" HPR user, either.

This is true. Unfortunately I just don't have the time to become
acquainted with it as would someone who actually needs to use it in real
life, as I only need it for testing.

And being sighted means that I don't have the incentive to become as
expert as would a genuine user.

Still, even a superficial knowledge is better than none, wouldn't you
agree?

BTW, I do think frames probably are more a usability problem than an
accessibility one, but that is more than enough reason to avoid them.

Well, as someone who's actually used them in real life I tend to look at
the situation without blinkers on, and without being unduly influenced
by all the 'frames-are-evil' hysteria.

Anyway, glad you agree that frames aren't (necessarily) an accessibility
problem ;-)

Which I think is where I came in ...........

regards.