- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:58:00 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>, Ian Jacobs <ian@w3.org>, WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>
At 08:39 AM 2002-03-28 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >I will take an action to raise this again as an issue in WCAG. > Please don't do that. I am checking with the leadership of the WCAG on this point. See the WAI CG archives. Ian did a good job of recapping the rationale. What I would like you to do, however, is give us an update on user agent implementation on skipping MAP. With links to backups. Al >Chaals > >On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > > Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: > > > le jeu 28-03-2002 à 10:42, Steven Pemberton a écrit : > > > >>>>I don't get the idea of putting the navbar in a <map> (client side image > >>>>map). What's the point? What do you gain? > >>>> > >>>This is for accessibility reason. See: > >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#group-bypass > >>> > >>Ooh I hadn't spotted this before. This is weird tag abuse. Can anyone > >>explain to me what the accessibility advantages are of using a client-side > >>image map not as a client-side image map, but as a container for links? > >> > >>Why is it better than using a <p> or a <div>? > >> > > > > Good question. Maybe Al will be able to give more input on that. > > Interestingly, it looks like this usage of <map> is not considered good > > anymore: > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-tech-issues.html#group-bypass > > "A further conclusion is that we do not want to recommend the MAP element > > as a way to group links since it is a non-standard use of the element." > > > That's unfortunate that the WCAG WG concluded that after: > > 1) That proposal being integrated into HTML 4.01, and > 2) A fair amount of time spent in the UAWG trying to meet the need > of recognizing MAP as navigation markup. > > I have not been party to the discussion in the WCAG WG, but I'm > a little disappointed to hear that now they're unrecommending what > is not *yet* standard practice but might have been. > > _ Ian > > > >-- >Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 >Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia >(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France) >
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 10:12:03 UTC