- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:46:07 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > In general I agree with the proposal. However I have concerns about the > example provided of what to do in an image map. > > HTML does specify the regions of the image which are active in the HTML > format, e.g. > > <map> > <area shape="rect" coords="0 0 5 5" alt="corner shop" /> > ...etc > > I think it is reasonable to expect that a user agent which can lay out an > image and render a border on it, and which can interpret movement within that > image, highlights the relevant part. > > (How does the group feel about claiming conformance based on the idea that > the status bar identifies the target of the currently focussed link?) This provision is in the document as a result of issue 458 [1]: "Do link highlighting requirements apply to all zones of an image map? What is required granularity?" The UAWG resolved at its 1 Feb 2001 teleconference [2] not to require highlighting of each zone, aware of your initial email [3] on this topic. While it may be feasible for a user agent to highlight active regions (for client-side image maps), we reasoned that in many cases, the author would be doing this, and therefore, it was not always required. We did not want to add a repair functionality when the author did not provide an image with borders built-in. Do you have new rationale for why we should reverse our earlier decision? - Ian [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc2.html#458 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0193 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/0181 -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 11:46:37 UTC