W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: WAI card

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:03:54 -0500 (EST)
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9901291601050.2648-100000@tux.w3.org>
That's why I didn't talk about ALT text as such.

I have changed mine - it allows for the mechanism that I think OUGHT to be
used in the future, which is A type links in a MAP with areas specified.

Charles



On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  I think, as a practical matter, for maximum accessibility right now, if
  we're going to ask people to avoid tables for layout, then we really should
  ask them to have redundant text links for image maps, in addition to the
  ALT text on AREA tags.
  
  This is because I think there are more browser/screenreader combos that can
  handle the tables, than there are that see the ALT text in AREA tags. (My
  earlier email pointed out summarized problems with NN and MSIE and ALT
  text; I believe, that they read tables cell by cell with most or all
  current screenreaders however). 
  
  On the other hand, if this card is aimed more at the future, when all user
  agents do what they are supposed to, then it's fine as is.
  
  Personally, I'm more worried about right now, even though it's messier.
  Which would mean omitting injunction against tables for layout, and adding
  words about redundant text links.  
  
  At any rate, that's what I'm doing with folks I advise now.
  
  Len
  
  At 12:49 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >I have been playing around with a version
  >
  >http://www.w3.org/People/Charles/thoughts/waicard
  >
  >It includes some thoughts and explanations.
Received on Friday, 29 January 1999 16:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:27 UTC