Re: OBJECT and map

Jason wrote:

> Actually, OBJECT has the potential to provide a much more sophisticated
> approach to image maps than does IMG, even if the LONGDESC attribute is
> added to the latter. The content of the OBJECT element can be more than
> just a simple list of links. It might itself include a complete
> description of the image, with links included in the description that
> refer to the resources designated by the various areas within the
> client-side map. Thus, the long description is an integrated part of the
> document, not a separate page, and the links emanating from the image map
> can be incorporated directly into the description, which would be
> displayed by default if the user has chosen, or the software is unable to
> present the image map graphically.
> 
> 

This is really a good point.

e.g.
 
<OBJECT data="delta-air.gif" shapes>
  This is an image of a plane with a Delta Logo on and
 it allows you to access the
  <A href="guide.html" shape="rect" coords="0,0,118,28">
        Guide to the service</A>
  or directly go to the page giving the 
  <A href="sched.html" shape="rect" coords="118,0,30,30">
        Flight Schedule</A>.
</OBJECT>
 
It doesn't look like MAP and AREA (attached to IMG or OBJECT) support
this kind of functionality, so now we have to think of what we lose if
we don't have it:

<IMG src="delta-air.gif" usemap="#map"
    ALT="This is an image of a plane with a Delta Logo on and
         it allows you to access the Guide to the service 
          or directly go to the page giving the Flight Schedule">

<MAP>
  <AREA href="guide.html" shape="rect" coords="0,0,118,28">
        alt="Guide to the service"</AREA>
  <AREA href="sched.html" shape="rect" coords="118,0,30,30">
        alt="Flight Schedule"</AREA>
</MAP> 


Even with LONGDESC added to IMG, you don't get the integration level
of the OBJECT shapes example, in fact, you need to maintain duplicate
data in different location, which is known to be a nightmare.

To me, this is clearly a barrier to accessibility.


Comments ?

Received on Thursday, 14 August 1997 05:53:18 UTC