Re: advice on alt text for image maps

thanks Jukka!

am in broad agreement with your suggestions, I will provide a more suitable
image example for the alt example section and post it for review.

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 9 December 2013 12:23, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote:

> 2013-12-09 13:36, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
>> HI all, have added some advice to html 5.1 text alternatives for <img>
>> elements when they are used as image maps
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
>> content-0.html#image-maps-0
>>
>> At your leisure, feedback welcome and appreciated.
>>
>
> The addition seems to be a copy of the example at
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#image-map
> except that alt="Four shapes are available: a red hollow box, a green
> circle, a blue triangle, and a yellow four-pointed star" has been replaced
> by the shorter alt="Four shapes are available:". This is an improvement,
> since color is not part of shape. But wouldn't it be better to improve the
> example where it is now and just link to from the lengthy discussion of the
> alt attribute?
>
> Besides, the example would still be odd. The alt attributes of the area
> elements mention colors, and the first one does not really describe the
> pattern: alt="Red box." should be alt="Square with a square hollow in its
> center", if the intent is to specify the shapes. (I don't see any good
> reason for the periods at the ends of alt attributes here. They don't cause
> harm I suppose, except that they make the reader wonder whether I should
> really use periods there, and why.)
>
> The example as a whole is rather artificial. It is difficult to imagine a
> meaningful context where you would present such a choice of shapes. And it
> would be more accessible (and simpler to code, hence safer against
> authoring mistakes) if presented simply as four image links. But,
> admittedly, it is difficult to find good examples of image maps. How about
> a geographic map? Say, a map of Australia (relatively simple, with not too
> many states), acting simply as an "active map" where you can click on any
> state to visit a page about that state.  The coords attributes would have
> many numbers, but that would not really add much to the structural
> complexity.
>
> The added text before the copy of the example says: "If an|img <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#the-img-element>|element has a|usemap|attribute which
> references a|map <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#the-map-element>|element containing|area <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#the-area-element>|elements that have|href|attributes,
> the|img <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#the-img-element>|is considered to be interactive content.
> In such cases, provide a text alternative that acts as a group label for
> the linked regions of the image." The end of the sentence is then repeated
> after the image, followed by the text "The|alt|attribute on each of
> the|area <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-
> content-0.html#the-area-element>|elements provides a label for each
> linked region". The formulation could probably be made simpler (more
> accessible), e.g.:
>
> If an img element has a usemap attribute and is thus associated with an
> image map, the alt attribute value describes the image as a whole in the
> context. This means that it acts as a caption for the collection of the alt
> attributes of the area elements, so that all these attributes together can
> be used as a captioned menu of choices, in a situation where the image is
> not seen.
>
> (I would prefer "caption", or maybe "heading", to "label" here, to avoid
> confusion with labels of controls defined via <label> markup.)
>
> --
> Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>
>
>