- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Yes, imagemaps do need to be defined. But tackling the problem by having a way of defining in CSS or somewhere else what parts of an image are linked would still mean the tools (the user) needs to say when to do it. So the problem is still to get better support from the tools. cheers Chaals On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: Imagemaps need defining, ie by using co-ordinates, and this is confusing for user and author. one is having to draw at least twice. Right, but that's because the tools are not very good. We can hope for a lot better from SVG tools, because you select the graphic elements to link, and it is unnatural to select the transparent part (in a mderately good interface). Having at least an option to define a colour as transparent and non-clickable is 'natural'. there is a further issue as to whether internal transparent areas be clickable, I can see no justification, as even with 256 colours one can select a similar but different colour. We have to accept that there is no way that we can design a system that will be failsafe. Even with the best of intentions, once there are a few movable images on a page, there are bound to be many juxtapositions that are hard to interpret. right. Clickable transparency makes almost any position difficult to interpret, without a complete understanding of the process. jonathan chetwynd IT teacher (LDD) j.chetwynd@btinternet.com http://www.peepo.com "The first and still the best picture directory on the web" -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 06:11:40 UTC