W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2001

Arcana & QuickTips

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:27:08 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010120071232.02a1f360@mail.gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
During the teleconference I sort of off-hand suggested the solution for the 
MAP vs. map problem be to simulate the (impractical) inclusion of "element" 
with the depiction as <map> (and further down <noframes>). The objections 
raised were that it would put a further layer of "techno-babble" in the 
face of the reader.

The reason I'm belaboring this is that this argument is spurious. The most 
cursory examination of the card from the POV of a naive reader reveals many 
terms that are only meaningful to someone already fairly immersed in said 
"babble": attribute, hypertext, CSS, longdesc, applets - none of which have 
any meaning outside this rarified sphere.

Tim Berners-Lee was also fearful that people would be so put off by "<" and 
">" that he was pleasantly surprised when they proved to be no barrier to 
acceptance of what has become the main economic/social/political phenomenon 
of our time. Anyone with even a small clue as to what "image map" actually 
means will NOT be awed by "<>" used to differentiate an element from an 
attribute.

The last thing I want to do is hold up production, because the more of 
these that get printed the more valuable becomes my "first edition" card 
when my estate is auctioned on eBay - however it is not the case that "<>" 
are any more off-putting than "longdesc" (which doesn't even work!).


--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 10:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC