W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: disparity in quicktips and guidelines?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:11:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907091910100.22663-100000@tux.w3.org>
Sorry, It is not the issue of image map text that needs to be revisited. It
is the question of whether being simple in lynx was an appropriate criterion.
(In this case I don't think there is a problem, but as a general policy we
want to check that we haven't inadvertently introduced a problem).

Cheers

Charles

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

  although the alternative text for client-side image maps links is not shown
  in IE and Netscape - they are available if you tab to them.  Thus, as well
  as being available in Lynx, HPR, etc., we decided it was not a problem.  As
  Jim states, however, it is an issue for server-side image maps.
  
  Charles - why do you feel the issue needs to be reviewed in regards to
  non-readers?  It seems to me that a non-reader would be using IE or NS with
  images loaded.  If they are using a screen reader, when they encounter a
  client-side image map the alt-text for each region will be read to them as
  they tab (we have tested this and it works). 
  
  Am I wrong to assume that a non-reader would most likely rather view the
  image map graphic than the alt-text or a redundant text link for each
  active region?  
  
  One bit of confusion is that  in IE the alt-text of the image map image is
  displayed as the tooltip.
  
  --wendy
  
  At 12:56 PM 7/9/99 , you wrote:
  >
  >
  >RN: Hmmm, why are image maps Priority 3?  When I turn graphics off, all i see
  >is the main alt tag for the graphic.  Since text links are required, I
  would
  >have thought a develpoer must require text links for image maps and
  therefore
  >would be Priority 1.
  >
  >JT: Alt text for client side maps (areas) is priority 1. Alternative text
  links
  >is priority 3 because those areas are generally accessible today. Look at
  >www.ibm.com/sns which has a map across the top. All alt text is displayed
  in IE
  >with images off, and spoken with screen readers and text browsers. Even
  without
  >alt text, Lynx, HPR, and others will at least expose the URL's.  Your comment
  >seems to be talking about server-side maps - where you would get one alt
  text.
  >Not using these or providing alterntive text links is priority 1.
  >
  >Jim Thatcher
  >IBM Special Needs Systems
  >www.ibm.com/sns
  >thatch@us.ibm.com
  >(512)838-0432
  >
  >
  >
  >Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> on 07/09/99 11:48:45 AM
  >
  >To:   Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
  >cc:   WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Robert Neff <robneff@home.com> (bcc: James
  >      Thatcher/Austin/IBM)
  >Subject:  Re: disparity in quicktips and guidelines?
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >thread transferred from Education and Outreach Group...
  >
  >In general it was felt that if a problem was easily handled by Lynx, which is
  >freely available for every platform I know of, then it could be regarded as
  >an improvement rather than an important barrier.
  >
  >In light of the disucssion about non-readers in particular, I suspect that
  >decision should be reviewed.
  >
  >Charles McCN
  >
  >On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Judy Brewer wrote:
  >
  >  Robert,
  >
  >
  >  You may want to ask this question in the Web Content Guidelines Working
  >  Group. I recall they had very specific reasons for being able to
  >  downgrade the priority of 1.5, but can't articulate that well right now.
  >
  >
  >  I've put it on the list of things to look over in revising the
  >  guidelines-- they're getting the list too.
  >
  >
  >  Judy
  >
  >
  >  At 12:01 AM 7/9/99 -0700, Robert Neff wrote:
  >
  >  >>>>
  >
  >  <excerpt>Do i see a disparity between the Web Content Accessibility
  >  Guidelines (WCAG) and Quicktips?
  >
  >
  >
  >  WCAG 1.5 states, "Until user agents render text equivalents for
  >  client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active
  >  region of a client-side image map. [Priority 3] "
  >
  >
  >
  >  Hmmm, why are image maps Priority 3?  When I turn graphics off, all i see
  >  is the main alt tag for the graphic.  Since text links are required, I
  >  would have thought a develpoer must require text links for image maps and
  >  therefore would be Priority 1.
  >
  >
  >
  >  Quicktips state "Image maps. Use client-side MAP and text for hotspots."
  >  Shouldnt we add text redundant links?  I was using this for a while and
  >  then re-realized that text links are needed - turn off graphics!
  >
  >
  >
  >  comments?
  >
  >
  >
  >  once we are finished reviwing this comment, can pass over to the GL.
  >
  >
  >  </excerpt><<<<<<<<
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >  ----------
  >
  >  Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  
  >
  >  Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
  >
  >  World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
  >
  >  MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA
  >
  >
  >--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
  >phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  > 
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 9 July 1999 19:11:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT