W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: city of hartford site has a text only?

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 08:29:18 -0500
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <kathleen.anderson@po.state.ct.us>
Message-ID: <000c01bf5c37$dcf28060$1aac66a7@151877>
David Poehlman wrote:
> can someone tell me if this should have been necessary?
> Thanks, url below.
> http://ci.hartford.ct.us/

In a word, no -- but then you knew that!
Anyone on the list in Connecticut want to take the Kynn challenge and create
an accessible version of this home page for them?
It looks like the authors constrained themselves to using FrontPage which,
from my experimentation with it, makes writing valid html difficult.

Kathleen Anderson wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'necessary', but, until user agents
> support alt tags for the hotspots in client-side image maps, or until
> the City eliminates the image map altogether, I believe he did the
> reasonable thing.

At this point, don't user agents support alt tags for hotspots in
client-side image maps quite well?  I am not sure about Netscape, but hasn't
I.E. 4.01 (and latter, w/ JFW) supported client-side image maps (that had
alt text of course) for like over a year now?  Has it not been a few years
since Lynx had this feature?

I offer this question up to the group:
Given a broken page to start with, which is more "reasonable", (1) re-coding
to the page (keeping the original appearance) to use valid and accessible
html, or (2) creating a text-only version of the page?
I have my prejudices, but I would like to hear some other opinions!

--  Bruce Bailey
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 08:31:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:47 GMT