W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: simple & understandable

From: Marti <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:01:59 -0400
Message-ID: <000601bebe74$09bb34a0$ea50da18@mcculler2.ne.mediaone.net>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
How are you guys getting this, my system just shows a big blank where the
image map should be! Maybe it is not a loss but ....
I am using I.E. 4
Marti

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
<w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: simple & understandable


>I am using the latest and greatest with images off and didn't even
>know there was an image.  gee, If I had wanted to bet to the links
>right away, I might have been disapointed.  This is not an acess issue
>but you might want to keep that in mind when designing your pages.
>some times, people will want an overview of the links on the page at
>the outset like the image map provides but since you've put an
>imagemap there it isn't presented to the non graphical user.
>
>Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>
>> At 09:50 AM 6/24/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>> >I created a graphical presentation of the six major links on a site and
put
>> >them all into one large graphic that fills most of the opening screen.
So
>> >far, the single image seems not to pose the problems that a set of seven
or
>> >so graphics on the page would have caused.
>>
>> What do you see as the problems caused by seven graphics that are
>> avoided by a single image?  I believe there are a number of
>> benefits in _avoiding_ imagemaps whenever possible, and this
>> case here would be an example of a time in which it's avoidable
>> (and thus preferable to avoid).
>>
>> Some reasons include:
>>
>> * Better "packaging" of the content in scalable chunks
>>   [Important for nonstandard screen displays such as palmsize PCs]
>> * Access to individual image links are better supported in every
>>   browser than access to imagemaps
>>   [Important for non-graphics users of graphical browsers as well
>>    as users of older versions of lynx]
>> * Ease of maintenance -- if a new section must be added, it's just
>>   a case of adding a new graphic rather than requiring a remake
>>   of an imagemap
>>   [Important for designer maintenance and design flexibility]
>> * Imagemaps _lack contextual clues of link status_ because they
>>   _do not display borders around hotspots_.  Granted, most graphics
>>   these days are included with BORDER=0, but the use of user
>>   defined cascading style sheets enable a visual user to turn those
>>   borders back on if the visual clues are thought to be useful!
>>   Which they _are_!
>>   [Important for increasing comprehension of web site design among
>>    users of graphical browsers, including cognitively disabled
>>    users]
>>
>> >The new version of my page is at:
>> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout
>>
>> >What else would be necessary to make the page at
>> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout accessible to both text and non-text
people???
>>
>> I would make the following changes:
>>
>> * Get rid of the imagemap and break it into a row of six images;
>>   lose the radiating lines (unnecessary for the most part) and
>>   I'd probably put the hand graphic above, not below, the other
>>   icons for graphic design reasons.  (As an "identity icon" for
>>   the page, it should be featured most prominently in the design.
>>   Also, the use of the hand as a separate icon allows for that
>>   particular graphic to be used as a link by someone who'd want
>>   to link to the site, as Jonathan suggests.)
>>
>> * If you must keep the imagemap, please label it correctly with
>>   ALT text on each area.  If your FrontPage does not support this,
>>   then you may need to change web creation software and/or code
>>   the imagemap by hand.
>>
>> * As a side note, FrontPage is including a LOT of very extraneous,
>>   unnecessary HTML code -- such as tables for positioning -- which
>>   bloats the size and complexity of what should be a simple page.
>>   You may want to strip out as much as possible of that chaff, since
>>   it may be locking your design into a specific screen resolution.
>>   This has implications for users who have configured their screen
>>   width and display properties to their _own_ needs -- such as low
>>   vision users -- and may make the page harder for them to access,
>>   as well as slower for everyone to load.
>>
>> * The links in your imagemap are repeated as text header links
>>   lower in the page, which is good.  I would place a copy of the
>>   picture next to each textual link, though, because it will
>>   increase comprehension for "baseline" users as well as non-
>>   textual users by associating the graphics above with the fuller
>>   descriptive text used later in the page, increasing comprehension.
>>
>> There's my 2 cents worth.
>>
>> --
>> Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
>> President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
>> AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
>
>--
>Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
>Touching The Internet:
>mailto:poehlman@clark.net
>Voice: 301.949.7599
>ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
>http://poehlman.clark.net
>Dynamic Solutions Inc.
>Best of service
>for your small business
>network needs!
>http://www.dnsolutions.com
>
>---sig off---
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 15:43:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:44 GMT