Technique 1.2.1 [priority 1] Verify that a server-side image map has associated text links. (was: RE: ERT Review)

ok. thanks Michael.
I have modified technique 1.2.1 as follows:
<blockquote>
Technique 1.2.1 [priority 1] Verify that a server-side image map has 
associated text links.
Discussion Status:
awaiting discussion
Evaluation:
If an IMG element has a valid "ismap" attribute and does not have a valid 
"usemap" attribute, prompt the user for associated text links.
Valid "ismap" attribute:
Must be a valid URL
Example Language:
Server-side image maps should have associated text links in the document.
Repair Technique:
Prompt the user for associated text links OR
help the user convert the server-side image map to a client-side image map 
and provide text-equivalents for each link in the client-side image 
map.  Refer to Check AREA for valid "alt." @@link.
If possible, check the text links against the links contained on the 
server-side image map. (@@how would someone do this?)
Test Files and Discussion Files:
Link to test files for this technique.
</blockquote>

At 04:04 PM 1/26/00 , Michael Cooper wrote:
>Sure. An ISMAP indicates a server side image map, and there is a need for
>local links. These can be provided either via text links (which we can't
>detect), or by also having a client side image map on the same image,
>indicated by USEMAP. A lot of authors double up so they have server side for
>older browsers and client side for newer browsers.
>
>Maybe it's easier to say, "we want to make sure all image maps are available
>as client side image maps". The simple presence of an ISMAP should not
>trigger this if there is in fact a client side image map for that image.
>
>The part about a valid USEMAP is simply to underscore that it's not enough
>to have a USEMAP attribute; its value must point to an existing MAP element
>that has at least one AREA child element. Separate techniques will check
>those AREA elements for ALT text and duplicated text links.
>
>Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wendy A Chisholm [mailto:wendy@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 3:36 PM
> > To: Michael Cooper; w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: ERT Review
> >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > I'm incorporating your comments in to the issues list.
> >
> > could please clarify the following statement for me. i'm having trouble
> > understanding it.
> > <blockquote>
> > Technique 1.2.A - Prompt user for text links if ISMAP used
> > Prompt for text links if ISMAP used only if USEMAP (with valid, e.g.,
> > found, MAP element as target) also not found.
> > </blockquote>
> >
> > At 12:08 AM 1/24/00 , Michael Cooper wrote:
> > >The attached HTML document is my review of the ERT document. I apologize
> > >that my comments aren't better contextualized than by links to the
> > >individual Techniques but this took long enough to do! This is
> > probably too
> > >long for substantive discussion right away, I know. Michael
> > >
> > >Michael Cooper
> > >Bobby Project Manager
> > >Technical Designer
> > >CAST, Inc.
> > >39 Cross St.
> > >Peabody, MA  01960
> > >Tel +1 978-531-8555 x265
> > >TTY +1 978-538-3110
> > >Fax +1 978-531-0192
> > >Email mcooper@cast.org
> > >http://www.cast.org/
> > >http://www.cast.org/bobby/
> >
> > --
> > wendy a chisholm
> > world wide web consortium
> > web accessibility initiative
> > madison, wi usa
> > tel: +1 608 663 6346
> > /--
> >

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Friday, 4 February 2000 14:04:53 UTC