RE: Technique: Use MAP to identify navigation mechanisms

i think this should be re-opened in regards to the priority assigned and the
alternate text.

-----Original Message-----
From: Al Gilman [mailto:asgilman@iamdigex.net]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 5:01 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Technique: Use MAP to identify navigation mechanisms


At 11:39 AM 7/12/99 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>The GL group decided, after much discussion, not to use MAP as a way to
>group text links because it is a non-standard use of the MAP element.
>Please refer to the closed issue "grouping and bypassing links" at
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-tech-issues.html#group-bypass.  MAP is
>defined in the HTML4 spec to create client-side image maps - refer to
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#edef-MAP.  
>
>If the group would like to reopen this for discussion based on the UA
>action item, then we will.  However, we need to think very clearly about
>the implications.  it seems like a kludge to me.
>

I would like to see this topic receive some more attention.  Not because I
think that MAP is the right answer [I want to abstain on that question for
now] but just because I agree with Jim Thatcher that this is an area where
a relatively small change can bring about a relatively large improvement.
So having one or more techniques that work is worth working on.

There may be problems with the skip-navigation internal link (ACB) approach
because of shortcomings in the implementation of intra-page links in the
graphical browsers in the field.

So far as I know, there is no technique that has a large footprint of
successful use in the web today.  There may well be problems that each
technique has with one or another existing or contemplated implementation
of HTML.

I do believe that the UA group can appropriately initiate extensions to the
recommendations for techniques.  Particularly if the UA group and the AU
group between them can get the browser and authoring tool vendors lined up
in consensus support of some technique or other.  That would certainly be
reason enough to overturn the GL decision from the past, based as it was on
head-scratching, not commitments for running code.

Al

Al
>--wendy
>
>At 12:04 PM 7/9/99 , you wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>In the User Agent Working Group, we're talking what user agents can
>>do to help users navigate, including making navigation mechanisms 
>>readily available. I am charged with an action to propose a technique
>>for the Web Content Techniques: use MAP to create navigation bars/group
>>related links.
>>
>>In the 5 May Techniques document, section 4.6.1 ("Grouping and
>>bypassing links") [1], an example shows <P class="nav">. Should
>>use the following markup instead?
>>
>><MAP name="map1">
>>   <P>Navigate the site:
>>      <A href=".." shape="rect"   coords="..">Access Guide</a> |
>>      <A href=".." shape="rect"   coords="..">Go</A>           |
>>      <A href=".." shape="circle" coords="..">Search</A>       |
>>      <A href=".." shape="poly"   coords="..">Top Ten</A>
>></MAP>
>>
>>User agents may assume that the MAP element is used to create
>>navigation mechanisms (whether image maps or more accessible
>>ones with rich content).
>>
>> - Ian
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#group-bypass
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>> 
>

Received on Monday, 12 July 1999 18:33:36 UTC