- From: Y.P. Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
- Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:27:12 +0200
- To: "'Ineke van der Maat'" <inekemaa@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hello Ineke, You are absolutely right about the validity problem with the MAP example in the Drempels Weg website. I am appalled at this and apologize to the list for posting a link to a website that suggests a technique that doesn't validate. I was so naïve to think that the Dutch initiative for accessibility would only use valid examples and didn't check it. However, after your message I checked several other pages on their website. None of them validated and a lot of them violated their own accessibility guidelines (which are derived from WCAG 1.0). I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this. This coming from the Dutch organization that is trying to raise awareness of accessibility problems in the Netherlands! I have notified them about these problems and will let you know off-list what their reply will be. (Anyone else who's interested, just let me know) The reason their example doesn't work is because according to the specification, MAP can contain only block-level elements or AREA-elements. <A> isn't a block level element, so it doesn't validate if you put those into a <MAP> directly. Putting the links inside a <P> or other block-level element would solve this problem. Regardless of the validion problems of the example, the point I originally tried to make still stands. In last Wednesday's techniques discussion, the point was raised that the MAP technique to group links was hardly ever used. I didn't agree on that since this technique is advised by Drempels Weg in the Netherlands so in the Netherlands this technique is used occasionally. This makes the MAP technique one that _is_ being used in the field and hence we should explain it if we no longer advise the technique (or even recommend against it) in WCAG 2. I think using an unordered list to group links is preferable to the <MAP> technique. Especially since only block-level elements are allowed within a MAP, it would probably lead to a lot of mistakes, like the one made by Drempels Weg. Also, the MAP technique doesn't support hierarchies of links, which the UL method does. For these reasons, I favor using <UL> for grouping links above the <MAP> technique and think this should be our recommended technique. Yvette Hoitink > -----Original Message----- > From: Ineke van der Maat [mailto:inekemaa@xs4all.nl] > Sent: zondag 10 augustus 2003 11:33 > To: Y.P. Hoitink > Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: Links from Yvette > > > Hello Yvette, > > http://www.drempelsweg.nl/toegankelijkbouwen/richt/richtlijnin > fo.php3?id > =5 > > When you validate the map-example you mentioned, it simply does not > validate: [snip validation errors] > When you mention examples, please validate before [priority2] > . The whole mentioned page has 26 errors. Nice for an > organisation that asserts to teach people about accessibility > and how to validate their pages. > > greetings > Ineke van der Maat
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 08:27:20 UTC