- From: Marti <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:01:59 -0400
- To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
How are you guys getting this, my system just shows a big blank where the image map should be! Maybe it is not a loss but .... I am using I.E. 4 Marti -----Original Message----- From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net> To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com> Cc: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 3:39 PM Subject: Re: simple & understandable >I am using the latest and greatest with images off and didn't even >know there was an image. gee, If I had wanted to bet to the links >right away, I might have been disapointed. This is not an acess issue >but you might want to keep that in mind when designing your pages. >some times, people will want an overview of the links on the page at >the outset like the image map provides but since you've put an >imagemap there it isn't presented to the non graphical user. > >Kynn Bartlett wrote: >> >> At 09:50 AM 6/24/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote: >> >I created a graphical presentation of the six major links on a site and put >> >them all into one large graphic that fills most of the opening screen. So >> >far, the single image seems not to pose the problems that a set of seven or >> >so graphics on the page would have caused. >> >> What do you see as the problems caused by seven graphics that are >> avoided by a single image? I believe there are a number of >> benefits in _avoiding_ imagemaps whenever possible, and this >> case here would be an example of a time in which it's avoidable >> (and thus preferable to avoid). >> >> Some reasons include: >> >> * Better "packaging" of the content in scalable chunks >> [Important for nonstandard screen displays such as palmsize PCs] >> * Access to individual image links are better supported in every >> browser than access to imagemaps >> [Important for non-graphics users of graphical browsers as well >> as users of older versions of lynx] >> * Ease of maintenance -- if a new section must be added, it's just >> a case of adding a new graphic rather than requiring a remake >> of an imagemap >> [Important for designer maintenance and design flexibility] >> * Imagemaps _lack contextual clues of link status_ because they >> _do not display borders around hotspots_. Granted, most graphics >> these days are included with BORDER=0, but the use of user >> defined cascading style sheets enable a visual user to turn those >> borders back on if the visual clues are thought to be useful! >> Which they _are_! >> [Important for increasing comprehension of web site design among >> users of graphical browsers, including cognitively disabled >> users] >> >> >The new version of my page is at: >> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout >> >> >What else would be necessary to make the page at >> >http://www.enabling.org/tryout accessible to both text and non-text people??? >> >> I would make the following changes: >> >> * Get rid of the imagemap and break it into a row of six images; >> lose the radiating lines (unnecessary for the most part) and >> I'd probably put the hand graphic above, not below, the other >> icons for graphic design reasons. (As an "identity icon" for >> the page, it should be featured most prominently in the design. >> Also, the use of the hand as a separate icon allows for that >> particular graphic to be used as a link by someone who'd want >> to link to the site, as Jonathan suggests.) >> >> * If you must keep the imagemap, please label it correctly with >> ALT text on each area. If your FrontPage does not support this, >> then you may need to change web creation software and/or code >> the imagemap by hand. >> >> * As a side note, FrontPage is including a LOT of very extraneous, >> unnecessary HTML code -- such as tables for positioning -- which >> bloats the size and complexity of what should be a simple page. >> You may want to strip out as much as possible of that chaff, since >> it may be locking your design into a specific screen resolution. >> This has implications for users who have configured their screen >> width and display properties to their _own_ needs -- such as low >> vision users -- and may make the page harder for them to access, >> as well as slower for everyone to load. >> >> * The links in your imagemap are repeated as text header links >> lower in the page, which is good. I would place a copy of the >> picture next to each textual link, though, because it will >> increase comprehension for "baseline" users as well as non- >> textual users by associating the graphics above with the fuller >> descriptive text used later in the page, increasing comprehension. >> >> There's my 2 cents worth. >> >> -- >> Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org >> President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ >> AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/ > >-- >Hands-On Technolog(eye)s >Touching The Internet: >mailto:poehlman@clark.net >Voice: 301.949.7599 >ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman >http://poehlman.clark.net >Dynamic Solutions Inc. >Best of service >for your small business >network needs! >http://www.dnsolutions.com > >---sig off--- > >
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 15:43:14 UTC