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

Re: last (fast) gasp for waicard10, closing Thursday a.m.

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:31:30 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: dd@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: chisholm@trace.wisc.edu, po@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Re what to say about image maps. We have

1.  Image maps. Use client-side MAP and text links for hotspots.  

two proposed changes are

2a   "Use client-side MAP and alt text for hotspots.  [alt not bold]
2b   "Use client-side MAP and alt text for hotspots.  [alt  bold]

another alternative is

3. "Use client-side MAP and alternative text for hotspots.

Although ALT text alone is optimal for some circumstances, I wouldn't be
able in good conscience to recommend all sites I work with to rely on ALT
text alone, given e.g. the MSIE/JAWS problems I heard about when I asked
people to look at the test page
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday/web_access/image_map.html  I'm particularly
concerned with government sites that must accommodate the widest range of

I've been persuaded (arguments by Charles and Daniel mostly) that given our
limited space the best answer is deliberate ambiguity that doesn't swing
too much one way or the other.

I'd suggest #3 ("alternative text").  My second choice would #2b (alt text
with alt not in bold).  My discomfort level rises with 2a (alt text with
alt in bold) because then I'm faced with convincing people to put in the
redundant text links even tho it's not on the card.  

As for the current wording, #1, (text links) hmmm... on a practical level
that's fine with me because it gets the job done, but I'm sympathetic with
concerns that it downplays ALT text which is in principle the superior
solution, at least when we can be sure that all the users have
browser/screenreaders that can handle it.

On another point...

I don't think we should go back to  "non-W3C inaccessible" ?

This could make someone think:

   So I need to provide alternative when the inaccessible material is
non-W3C but don't need to provide alternative when the inaccessible
material is W3C?

   Even if there's no inaccessible W3C material I think this is confusing

Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering
Temple University

Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215} 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Thursday, 11 February 1999 11:30:34 UTC

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