W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1998

RE: Nir's comments - tables vs imagemaps

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 11:06:20 +1000 (EST)
To: Shurel Reynolds-Hartman <shurel@mind-work.com>
cc: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980730105958.13777E-100000@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
Ummm, there is a MAJOR problem with this example: It is based on 
non-standard server technology. Although it MAY be accessible, it only 
works with specific software/hardware cominations.

However I agree in principle. The users who are disadvantaged by 
imagemaps are visual users with newish browsers (which don't give very 
good access to the various ALT text) and those using a screen-reader with 
such browsers, which I believe is even worse.

Your example can be rewritten in proper HTML, and there is just such an 
example in the HTML 4.0 recommendation at 

<P><OBJECT data="navbar1.gif" type="image/gif" usemap="#map1">
      <P>This is a navigation bar.

   <MAP name="map1">
    <AREA href="guide.html" 
             alt="Access Guide" 
    <AREA href="search.html" 
    <AREA href="shortcut.html" 
    <AREA href="top10.html" 
             alt="Top Ten" 

Charles McCathieNevile

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Shurel Reynolds-Hartman wrote:

> I disagree, in fact, it is possiblt to include 'Alt' tags for each 'Area' 
> tag. Not only the that, imagemaps were and are intended for low bandwidth. 
>  The bear fact of slicing up images into little pieces to fit in cells 
> can't be less work than the map production itself
> This is just one example:
> <!--webbot bot="ImageMap" polygon="(29,14) (100,16) (88,46) (31,36) 
> http://foo"
> src="images/layout3.jpg" width="319" height="215" alt=" Foobar"
> alt="layout3.jpg (3607 bytes)" border="0" -->
> Shurel
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 1998 21:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC