W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > May 2003

Re: (Image)Maps in XHTML 2

From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:48:42 +0200 (MEST)
To: "Rafael Gieschke" <rafael@gieschke.de>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <14062.1053586122@www52.gmx.net>

> Many web authors use image maps. But image maps are only presentational as
> they link *different regions of a picture* to other ressources. So, they
> are binded to the presentation of the picture. As presentational they
> shouldn't be represented directly in XHTML 2.

<snip />

<< Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt",
"longdesc", or in element content). This includes: images, graphical
representations of text (including symbols), image map regions, animations (e.g.,
animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art, frames, scripts,
images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or
without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and
video. [Priority 1] >>

(See <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#client-side-text-equivs>)

I know what you mean, but I have to pronounce the importance of alternative
linkage when you use image maps (according to all I learnt about
Accessibility and Usability). This (WAI conformity) IMO implies a) a softer kind of
'binding' as you mentioned before (because all links or actions are not only
related to the picture), and b) you should offer alternatives integrating any
other type of media map, too.

Related to the presentational meaning of image maps I fully agree.


Regards,
 Jens Meiert.


-- 
Jens Meiert

Steubenstr. 28
D-26123 Oldenburg

Telefon +49 (0)441 99 86 147
Telefax +49 (0)89 1488 2325 91
Mobil +49 (0)175 78 4146 5

eMail <jens@meiert.com>
Internet <http://meiert.com>
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 02:48:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:55 GMT