Re: OBJECT and map

Daniel's well constructed example illustrates my point exactly. Even
if
LONGDESC is added to IMG, the best that could be achieved would comprise
(1) a list of links on the same page as the image map; and (2) a separate
long description, which, as Greg pointed out in a previous discussion,
could be located either at the end of the current document or in a
separate file. The long description would bear no direct relationship to
the list of links. It would of course be possible for the author to
include all of the relevant links both in the description and, separately,
in ALT text when defining areas within the image map. In such a case
however, one set of links would become redundant. I do not think that
authors are likely to make an effort to define ALT text, and then to write
a separate description which also incorporates all of the links associated
with the image map.

A single, coherent solution is required, which integrates the need for a
long description with the requirement for a textual alternative to the
links provided by the image map. The OBJECT element provides the only such
solution that is presently available or proposed, and I do not think that
modifications to HTTP or image file formats of the kind that have been
discussed in this group would serve as a satisfactory substitute. Thus, in
answer to Daniel's question, I would suggest that loss of the capacity to
refer to image maps by means of OBJECT would exclude a solution to the
accessibility problem which, as argued above, not only satisfies the needs
of users but is also likely to be more acceptable to authors than the
redundancy introduced by LONGDESC and ALT text.

Received on Thursday, 14 August 1997 19:15:42 UTC