RE: Technique: Use MAP to identify navigation mechanisms

At 06:33 PM 7/12/99 -0400, Neff, Robert wrote:
>i think this should be re-opened in regards to the priority assigned and the
>alternate text.

What were you thinking about the alternate text?

Al

>
>-----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 19:49:40 UTC