W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: draft guideline (R1/2)

From: Geoff Freed <Geoff_Freed@wgbh.org>
Date: 17 Jul 1997 15:41:07 -0400
Message-ID: <n1342968379.88761@wgbh.org>
To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@access.digex.net>, w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
        Reply to:   RE>>draft guideline (R1/2)

I get it-- if the same image is used on several pages, one single description at one single location will suffice.  If you're linking to this single description from multiple paths, the "return" link isn't such a good idea.  Your idea of "use your browser's 'back' function..." is good.  In theory you *could* use a hard-coded "return" link if a description was used only once for only one image, but for the sake of consistency in design, I think I'd support the back-button idea for all descriptions.

Geoff Freed
CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media

--------------------------------------
Date: 7/17/97 2:18 PM
To: Geoff Freed
From: Al Gilman
The (R1/2) in the Subject says that this is the first of two
replies...

This is really good.  There are some rather fine-grain distinctions
I want to clear up; we are real close.

to follow up on what Geoff Freed said:

> 
> Al, in your recommendations you state that links from from a
> description page back to an image should not be used.  I've
> always thought that a "return" link from a description back to
> its image was a useful navigational aid.  I also think that, in
> the case of an image map or other selectable image, a description
> which provides text links corresponding to the graphic links is a
> good idea.  Am I misunderstanding your point?  Can you elaborate?
> Thanks.
> 

First point:  

There are two possible interpretations of "linking to the image."
One is to link via the URL for the image file.  I tried to say
people should do that.  The other is to link back to where the
image is used by an IMG tag in an HTML page.  That is the return
link that I am arguing against.  This second kind of link would
have to change every time you use the image in a different page.
If the description is 100% about the image, then it can be reused
unchanged along with the image.  If there is a hypertext link
back to where the IMG tag was, then the description document is
locked to the page where that IMG tag appears and you can't
re-use it.

I am reacting, here, to some language that is in the San Jose
guidelines.  I may even have mis-interpreted it.  But I read it
to say "put a hotlink at the end of the description that takes
the user back where they came from."  I have had situations in
the past where I got to coach people to put "use your browser
BACK function to return to where you were" instead of a
hard-coded hotlink so that a page could support multiple paths
that lead to it.


Second point:  

The idea of a text page which provides links covering "everywhere
you can go from the Image Map" is a good idea to me, too.  I
tried to say every image map should have one of these, and
furthermore it should always be what you get as the response to
selecting the coordinates (0,0) or any other coordinates outside
the sensitive regions.  Eyeball-oriented authors may not want to
define a DEFAULT response, preferring that clicking outside the
intended sensitive areas be an error.  In that case we may have
to fall back to the idea that (0,0) is sensitive and goes to the
text navaid.  In any case I agree with you that this page should
exist.

Yet finer detail: I suggested that authors consider upgrading
their images to sensitive status with one link from the default
region to the description document.  I would accept this as an
alternative to linking from the text, if there is no natural home
in "text that the author would have put on the page anyway" for a
link to the description.

Thank you for letting me try to clarify this.

--
Al Gilman



------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by wgbh.org with ADMIN;17 Jul 1997 14:16:59 -0400
Received: (from asgilman@localhost)
          by access5.digex.net (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id OAA07700; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:15:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199707171815.OAA07700@access5.digex.net>
Subject: Re: draft guideline (R1/2)
To: Geoff_Freed@wgbh.org (Geoff Freed)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:15:37 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <n1342983661.63727@wgbh.org> from Geoff Freed at "Jul 17, 97 11:24:27 am"
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 15:41:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:59:56 EDT