- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 16:59:11 -0700
- To: Daniel Steinberger <Daniel.Steinberger@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2003-06-05 01:36 +0200, Daniel Steinberger wrote:
> >Things that are clickable should be in the primary content, not in
> >styling.
>
> I think so, too. At last because of accessibility-issues. I can access
When I think of expressing something like imagemaps using CSS, I would
imagine that what we'd want would be something that would allow markup
like this:
<div id="statelinks">
<a href="al/" id="state_al">Alabama</a>
<a href="ak/" id="state_ak">Alaska</a>
...
<a href="wi/" id="state_wi">Wisconsin</a>
<a href="wy/" id="state_wy">Wyoming</a>
</div>
to be presented as an image map.
The style might look something like this:
#statelinks {
content: image-map-url(us_map.png), contents;
}
#state_al {
image-map-region: rect(400px, 200px, 420px, 250px);
}
#state_ak {
image-map-region: polygon(5px 295px, 20px 275px, 50px 275px, ...);
}
etc
where image-map-url() was similar to url(), except it implied that
descendants with 'image-map-region' not equal to 'none' would be links
in the image map.
This is something I came up with in a few minutes, and I don't think
it's a particularly good proposal. But it is an idea of what I'd expect
imagemaps-in-CSS to look like.
The point, however, isn't the proposal itself, but that I don't think
this would have the accessibility problems you mention.
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 20:00:25 UTC