- From: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:54:16 +0100
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns wrote: >> If you wanted it to transmit the click through the area onto the image >> button behind it, then that's no good for accessibility (users without >> a pointing device couldn't click through the area, and activating an >> <area> with the keyboard wouldn't be able to do anything sensible >> since the UA would have no idea what was sensible in that case), and >> it would be incompatible with the current implementations in >> Firefox/Opera. > > Again, those are implementation problems that could be handled in a much > richer fashion. For keyboard access, users could tab through the |area| > elements. As each |area| got focus it would get the focus outline > (though the outline would match the shape of the |area| whatever that > may be). For aural users, they already can navigate the |area| elements > and select the appropriate one based on the @alt text. <map name="m"> <area shape="circle" coords="100,100,50" title="Area 1" alt="Area 1 (circular, central)"> <!-- no href --> </map> <form action="submit.cgi"> <input type="image" src="200x200.png" usemap="#m"> </form> What are you suggesting should happen: * when you click on a part of the <input> that is outside the circle? * when you click on a part of the <input> that is inside the circle? * when you select the circle <area> using a keyboard (or something equivalent) and activate it? > However, it COULD be much more than that advantage wise. By liaison with > the CSS WG, we could encourage better CSS support for client-side image > maps to provide richer UI experiences for users using those image maps. > Relevant CSS properties include border, outline, height and width, etc.) > CSS3 or beyond could add properties to add certain masks to the image > (like enlighten to make the hovered, focussed or activated area become > brighter). That doesn't seem relevant to the discussion about <input usemap> - it just applies to normal client-side image maps via <img usemap>. It may be nice if you could style <area>s, but I think that's solely CSS and is unrelated to the HTML WG. (I would expect it's not something that would work easily in CSS, since CSS thinks everything is a box whereas <area>s can be circles and polygons instead. If you only want styled boxes, you can use absolutely-positioned <div>s instead of <map>/<area>s and then it already works. But in any case, the styling of image maps sounds like a CSS issue and not HTML.) >> If you're not using a server side, there's no point in using >> server-side image maps, so <input usemap> is irrelevant - just use >> client-side image maps. > > I thought we were discussing client-side image maps. I hadn't said > anything in support of server-side image maps (though they have their > place, but I hadn't said anything in favor of them). My understanding of this thread is that we were discussing <input usemap>, as it says in the subject line; and the whole point of <input usemap> is that it acts like a server-side image map as well as a client-side image map. When you only want one or the other, you can use <input type=image> (server-side) or <img ismap> (server-side) or <img usemap> (client-side). -- Philip Taylor philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 12:54:36 UTC