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

RE: imagemaps

From: Josh Krieger <josh@zafu.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:14:48 -0500
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The first point says, replace all server-side imagemaps by client-side ones,
except where it's not possible.

The second point says, add redundant links for all server-side imagemaps
[remaining]. But, because of the first point, the only server-side maps
remaining are those that can't actually be converted into client-side
imagemaps.  In this case, it would then be impossible to actually list the
links of the map, and the second point is invalid.

+ Josh +

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 12:15 PM
To: Josh Krieger
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: imagemaps

At 09:03 AM 3/14/2001 , Josh Krieger wrote:
>Just going through the techniques doc for WCAG 1.0. I'm surprised at the
>following flub. When these techniques make their way into the HTML specific
>techniques, 7.4.4 should be removed as it contradicts 7.4.3.

Not sure I understand the flub.

>+ Josh +
>7.4.3 Client-side versus server-side image maps
>Checkpoints in this section:
>    9.1 Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps
>except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric
>shape. [Priority 1]
>7.4.4 Server-side image maps
>Checkpoints in this section:
>    1.2 Provide redundant text links for each active region of a
>image map. [Priority 1]

Can you explain how they contradict each other?


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Tel +1 949-567-7006
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 13:11:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC