iframes and accessibility
Are iframes Accessible?
Yes
37%
[ 3 ]
No
37%
[ 3 ]
Not decided yet
25%
[ 2 ]
Total Votes : 8
I'm seeing any awful lot of contradictory information about the accessibility of iframes.
What's the view of other users?
Cheers!
Share: 
There have been many discussions about this (including this thread from a couple of years ago on here) and I haven't seen a conclusive answer yet (actually, I'm not sure there is one, hence my vote for 'not decided').
Interesting to note the WebAIM Screen Reader Survey results about frames, which also shows very mixed feelings (not just referring to iframes, though).
I always include a standard link to the content of an iframe, along with the iframe itself.
James Coltham - Local gov web manager by day, web and accessibility blogger at lunchtime, freelancer by night. Tweets at @prettysimple.
Share:
| Gary Miller wrote: |
| What's the view of other users? |
Having said that, not everyone would necessarily feel that way, and obviously if you are presenting special offers blah blah blah...
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| James Coltham wrote: |
| There have been many discussions about this (including this thread from a couple of years ago on here)... |
Funnily enough, it was Number 1 and 2 of the ranking when I Googled 'iframes + accessibility'! The WebAIM article came number 3.
| James Coltham wrote: |
| I always include a standard link to the content of an iframe, along with the iframe itself. |
Hmmm...thanks I'll remember that!
| JackP wrote: |
| Having said that, not everyone would necessarily feel that way, and obviously if you are presenting special offers blah blah blah... |
Yeah, it's basically for an Amazon ad...not sure which way to go just yet. Will keep on reading.
Ta muchly guys!
Share:
There should be no problem in accessing Iframe content from a modern AT UA.
Typically:
- -- the user agent will tell you that there is more than one frame on the page,
-- you then chose which frame to read
(... so remember to label the Iframe with a meaningful description.)
Alternatively, the Iframe may be read as part of the page that it's embedded in.
Either way, there should be no problem in accessing the content.
(That being said, I always supply a non-Iframes version for the benefit of those browsers -- of whatever kind -- that don't support Iframes.)
.
Share:
Jake,
Thanks for the feedback. If an experienced AT user like yourself says it's OK, then that's good enough for me.
I will also take on-board your suggestions regarding labelling and alternative versions.
Many thanks!
Share:
Sure.
I think that most AT UAs have their own way of dealing with Iframes -- so, always difficult to generalize.
Still, within the <iframe></iframe> set both the "name" and "title" parameters to something meaningfull. These will be used to tell the user what the frame contains.
And prior to the </iframe> just put a link to a non-frames version along with a note of what the link is for. This will make it accessible to UAs that don't support Iframes or have Iframes turned off (for whatever reason).
I don't use Iframes much, but there are occasions where they're useful.
.
Share:
Jake, many thanks! I'll implement your suggestions.
Share:
I use an <iframe> for the Google map on Calthorpe's contact page. It puts 4 validation errors into my HTML. It varies between 100 and 300 errors for the document as a whole, since the map uses more frames internally. The code is ghastly.
I consider this Google's problem, not mine. After all, it's their code, not mine. They aren't paying me to improve their products, so why should I?
Furthermore I can spend maybe 1% of my £1,000 annual salary on time fiddling with that page. £10 is about 1 hour 10 minutes of work, for the rate I get there.
Somehow, I think Google could spend rather more than £10 fixing their code. Why don't they, I wonder? They are clearly able to but choose not to.
Share:
| Ben Millard wrote: |
| I use an <iframe> for the Google [...]It puts 4 validation errors into my HTML. It varies between 100 and 300 errors for the document as a whole, since the map uses more frames internally. The code is ghastly.
I consider this Google's problem, not mine. |
This is an interesting point. I have googleads on my blog, with an iframe. The iframe generally introduces invalidity. But I also take the stance that this is google's issue. Particularly as that invalidity is not going to affect anyone using the content I write.
But, equally, it means that I know my site may not be valid. Now in the longer term, this is not going to be a major issue, as the revenue generated by the ads covers only a fraction of the hosting costs - as most visitors probably use adblock - so I'm planning to drop them at some point, but for the time being it means that I know my site is invalid, and I'm happy to settle for this.
Which is odd because I used to be such a campaigner for validity: but it reflects my changing stance that what is important is real world accessibility. Although I will generally still strive to ensure that the code I write is valid...
The issue with googlemaps is also interesting, as these tend to be used for a more integral purpose to the site. However, unless there is a better map available, people are generally left with two options: have no map, or have an invalid (and sometimes poorly accessible) one.
In this case, going down the "no map" route benefits no-one. Going down the "invalid, possibly poorly accessible map" route is potentially offering content to non-disabled users which is not available to disabled users, and that's obviously not ideal, but practically what else can you do?
If someone is able to exert pressure on google to have more valid maps; other social media things to have more valid ones of whatever it is they do, that's brilliant. But if there isn't an accessible alternative, then it's not really the developer's fault; they are just choosing from the available tools.
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
It would be quite challenging to actually make a visual map more accessible. Indeed, if someone has severe visual or cognitive difficulties that make reading a map a challenge, I don't think there's any way you can provide all the information on the map to them; instead, summarisation might be a better approach. Provide, alongside the map, a list of walking directions from nearby bus or train stations in plain HTML. (Anyone with a disability that precludes using a map is extremely unlikely to be driving!) More usefully, if your office is particularly out of the way or hard to reach on foot, you could provide a link to your contact page, and offer for someone from the office to be on-hand for the journey from the station.
With regards to directions, Google Maps HTML directions might be useful. You could provide a form from which one may select from a number of locations near the office that are reachable by public transport, and take them directly to the HTML directions.
Share:
Could someone check this code for me please?
| Code: |
| <iframe src="http://rcm-uk.amazon.co.uk/e/cm?t=thdosbl01-21&o=2&p=44&l=ur1&category=electronicsfoto&banner=1REKHHWJQCF6VF6A1902&f=ifr" width="100" height="70" name="Low prices on electronics and photo from Amazon UK." title="Low prices on electronics and photo from Amazon UK." scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" style="border:none;" frameborder="0">
<p>If you can see this text, your browser does not support iframes. <a href="http://rcm-uk.amazon.co.uk/e/cm?t=thdosbl01-21&o=2&p=44&l=ur1&category=electronicsfoto&banner=1REKHHWJQCF6VF6A1902&f=ifr">View the content of this inline frame</a> within your browser.</p> </iframe> |
I've made the alterations suggested. Can't get frames disabled in FF3 to check if it works, so image shows up fine. In all other browsers I've tried, the space where the banner goes is there, but the banner doesn't show.
[edit]Plus, can't get "If you can see this text....." to show![/edit]
Wood for the trees time again?
Share:
I put a few pieces of code around yours and tried it.
It shows the Amazon image OK in: IE6, Safari, Chrome, and Opera.
(Opera used to have the facility to switch off frames, but I couldn't find the switch now -- so couldn't test the 'noframes' situation.)
Works OK in my AT reader.
In the main body of the code I hear:
Internal frame 2: Low prices on electronics and photo from Amazon UK..
And if I ask for a list of frames it tells me:
Internal frame 2 contained in frame1: Low prices on electronics and photo from Amazon UK..
(The Low prices on electronics and photo from Amazon UK.. is picked up from the title="")
Is there a specific reason for doing what your doing ......?
.
Share:
Jake,
Thanks for checking. All I'm doing is trying to add an accessible iframe advert from Amazon on my blog site.
Do I take it from what you said that it's OK? Or does it need some refinement?
Thanks,
Gary
Share:
If I listen to the content of the Iframe, I hear:
(Start of map with 2 items.)
[Map: cm/privacy-policy.html]
[Map: www.amazon.co.uk/b]
(End of Map.)
(Start of map with 2 items.)
[Map: cm/privacy-policy.html]
[Map: www.amazon.co.uk/b]
(End of Map.)
Would this supply sufficient information to the user to know what they have the option of accessing?
The problem is that there is no 'alt text' specified on the map's <area> entries.
i.e.
| Code: |
| <map name="boxmap">
<area shape="rect" coords="13,58,87,70" href="http://rcm-uk.amazon.co.uk/e/cm/privacy-policy.html?o=2" target="_top"> <area coords="0,0,10000,10000" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?node=560798&tag=thdosbl01-21&camp=1678&creative=6586&linkCode=ur1&adid=15Y5C3C228TZD09AK2XM&" target="_top"> </map> |
If it does, then I'd say it was OK.
.
Share: