RE: Server Side Image Maps

Hello Jim,
I like Charles answer better that what I have to say.  I didn't mean that
the King County site was bad (I haven't really looked at it closely), but
wasn't somebody else complaining about them recently?  The bit about
"available geometric shape" IMHO is a bit misleading, but you've got the
point exactly.  In a 200x200 pixel map, there's 40,000 "hot spots" (Kynn, if
you're listening, I did the math right this time).  One can not hope to have
equivalent text links for this situation.

> ----------
> From: 	Jim Thatcher
> Reply To: 	jim@jimthatcher.com
> Sent: 	Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:11 PM
> To: 	Bailey, Bruce; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: 	RE: 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.
> 
> Jim
> jim@jimthatcher.com
> Accessibility Consulting
> http://jimthatcher.com
> 512-306-0931 
>