W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1998

Nir's comments - tables vs imagemaps

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:04:59 +1000 (EST)
To: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980727085807.7328A-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Nir (I think) said:
I think everybody will agree that tables are better than imagemaps...

CMcCN::
No. I don't. Image maps can (and should) be provided with ALT text for each 
AREA, which makes it simple to deal with a text-only version. For people 
whose alternative is (flawed) screen readers TABLE may not be better.

I do agree that use of images as links is not a really great practise -  
it often causes problems for fully sighted people (http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au
used to be my example, but I haven't looked for a while) who cannot 
understand how (for example) a light bulb is supposed to imply a gallery, 
or five horizontal bars an image.

A preferable solution is to avoid TABLE as a layout mechanism completely, 
and to provide alternatives to imagemaps.

Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Sunday, 26 July 1998 19:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:40 GMT