- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:27:08 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
During the teleconference I sort of off-hand suggested the solution for the
MAP vs. map problem be to simulate the (impractical) inclusion of "element"
with the depiction as <map> (and further down <noframes>). The objections
raised were that it would put a further layer of "techno-babble" in the
face of the reader.
The reason I'm belaboring this is that this argument is spurious. The most
cursory examination of the card from the POV of a naive reader reveals many
terms that are only meaningful to someone already fairly immersed in said
"babble": attribute, hypertext, CSS, longdesc, applets - none of which have
any meaning outside this rarified sphere.
Tim Berners-Lee was also fearful that people would be so put off by "<" and
">" that he was pleasantly surprised when they proved to be no barrier to
acceptance of what has become the main economic/social/political phenomenon
of our time. Anyone with even a small clue as to what "image map" actually
means will NOT be awed by "<>" used to differentiate an element from an
attribute.
The last thing I want to do is hold up production, because the more of
these that get printed the more valuable becomes my "first edition" card
when my estate is auctioned on eBay - however it is not the case that "<>"
are any more off-putting than "longdesc" (which doesn't even work!).
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 10:25:56 UTC