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

RE: My comments on tables vs image maps

From: Shurel Reynolds-Hartman <shurel@mind-work.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:22:58 +0200
Message-ID: <01BDBBD6.51001FC0.shurel@mind-work.com>
To: "'WAI'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
As a web developer, for me the argument is not wether not to images or 
text, but the accessability of the location to a text-browser as well as a 
graphical one. Dropping graphics to the eager-to-see graphics surfer does 
not acheive accessability, in fact it discourages visitation. We ought not 
to forget that images carry messages especially to the visual-dependant!


> To clarify my position, I think that text links are more usable
> than images are links, which in turn are more
> usable than image maps.

> This applies to users of graphical browsers.
>
> There are many reasons for that, including
> the ability to ditinguish between visited and
> unvisited links and using active and hover feedbacks.
>
> In a text browser, all
> three options are equivalent (if there is correct alt text)
> as images and image maps are upgarded
> to text by the browser.


When in 'Text' mode, visited, unvisited, active and (IE)hover works 
perfectly well, with the assistance of CSS.
So where is the argument.


Shurel.
Received on Thursday, 30 July 1998 10:23:39 GMT

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