- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:43:04 -0800
- To: jim@jimthatcher.com, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 5:14 PM -0600 11/30/00, Jim Thatcher wrote: >Can anyone explain why a web site developer would choose a server side image >map like the one at http://www.metrokc.gov/ over a client side image map? I >am assuming the developer knows accessibility and the requirement for >equivalent text links. What are the advantages of server side image maps? I >had always thought that it had something to do with unusual regions. But the >client side map at http://support.dell.com (WITHOUT alt text on the areas) >illustrates the fact that you can get as exact as you want with the regions. You probably should ask the developer of the site. :) The main arguments _for_ using server side maps are: 1. Funky shapes and other custom coding (you can actually get pretty detailed if you want to for reason, but in most cases you won't want to) 2. Backwards compatibility -- at one time, only "new" browsers supported server side maps, but that time was about 4 years ago The main arguments _against_ using server side maps and _for_ using client side server maps: 1. No way of encoding accessibility information via alt in server-side 2. Faster processing because it doesn't have to make a server roundtrip with client-side 3. Client-side can be used in offline browsing situations just fine, because doesn't need access to server 4. A lot easier to make and maintain client-side maps, from the webmaster's perspective 5. Client-side works great in all current browsers including Lynx 6. Server-side maps require additional, redundant textual links which are not required for client-side maps (but they are still a good idea) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2000 18:47:50 UTC