Re: Mailing list archives: feeback requested on proposedimprovements (2: view)

Dom,

As I told Charles, I am checking with the WCAG leadership.

On the other hand let me give this interim report.  If I recall correctly, the language in the reference that says we abjure the use of MAP is actually older than the decision to recommend MAP in the WCAG 1.0 techniques, despite the lastChange date on the file.  If we started diffing that document with older versions I believe that paragraph hasn't changed in a dog's age.  

Is there any actual harm from using MAP, here?  Not theory, scenarios leading to actual dysfunction?

Al

At 08:39 AM 2002-03-28 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I am very disappointed, particularly as the HTML group, on the recommendation
>of WAI PF, after discussion of this issue, changed the content model of HTML
>4.01 specifically to make this valid (as well as the fact that it worked in
>browsers).
>
>I will take an action to raise this again as an issue in WCAG.
>
>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 10:46:37 UTC