- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>
- cc: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
According to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the things you have described are server side image maps. (The definition of image maps at http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/wai-pageauth.html#image-map is functional, not code based.) In actual fact for most maps it is not terribly hard to have a client-side map in principle, using vector-based technology. Roadmaps are in essence vector diagrams. But there are certainly some kinds of image maps where the most appropriate non-visual interface is different - perhaps form-based, or text links. And as Jim points out, reducing the navigation overload is helpful. cheers Charles On Sat, 26 May 2001, Jim Thatcher wrote: Server Side Image Maps (was: images / alt and image maps)Hi Bruce, Actually, the maps at MapBlast are image buttons and according to HTML 4: <quote> When a pointing device is used to click on the image, the form is submitted and the click coordinates passed to the server <endquote>. So they behave like server-side image maps but technically are not. Do you know of other examples of server-side maps in use that are not image buttons? You said that the provision about available geometric shapes applies to maps where each pixel is, in effect, a separate hot link. If so, how then can one hope to have equivalent text links for the hot spots? I want to emphasize that my example of King County was not raising the issue of whether or not that could be a client site map; instead I was pointing out that making their navigation banner a server-side map with text links at the bottom of the page provided a "skip navigation" technique and certainly did not interfere with access.
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2001 15:19:39 UTC