E-mail List Archives
Thread: Lynx and imagemaps
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: Joe Clark
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 7:00AM
Subject: Lynx and imagemaps
No previous message | Next message →
>I haven't used Lynx
then you shouldn't be speculating.
>but if Opera's text-only mode is representative of Lynx, then image
>maps are not visible to Lynx users at all other than perhaps the alt
>text of the image as a whole.
False. Imagemaps are fully usable, and alt texts are given. Even an
imagemap with no alt texts can be used.
Merely as an example, the tiny imagemap at the top of
<http://joeclark.org/>; looks like this in Lynx:
[9]Joe Clark: Accessibility | Design | Writing
which is a selectable link that, when activated, produces:
[Joe Clark: Accessibility | Design | Writing]
MAP: http://joeclark.org/#joeclark_angie_02IX_Map
* [1]Journalism, articles, book
* [2]Graphic and industrial design
* [3]Media access (captioning, Web accessibility, etc.)
Those are also selectable links. The alt texts are in all cases
shown. (In the latter screen, Lynx uses the title attribute of the
original image. Lynx can display title in some cases.)
--
Joe Clark | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = | <http://joeclark.org/access/>;
Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ | <http://joeclark.org/book/>;
Expect criticism if you top-post
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: julian.rickards
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 8:17AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
Many thanks for your correction Joe.
I agree that perhaps I should not have been speculating but without my
speculation, did anyone else comment on whether Lynx can use image maps or
not. Not many people use/have Lynx (despite the fact that it is a free
download) so my speculation led to valuable information.
Perhaps Joe, you could comment on the apparent contradiction between WCAG
1.1 and 1.5 where 1.1 recommends alt text for image map hotspots and 1.5
recommends text links equivalent to the image map hotspots.
Jules
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 9:10AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
Julian,
There are of course two types of image maps, client side and server side.
Providing alt text for the hot spots on a client side map makes it available
to non-visual functionality (lynx, screen readers, etc.) {WCAG 1.1}.
However, server side image maps (rationally more sophisticated - think
mapquest) generally do not have as easily identifiable hot spots, thus the
need for text equivs {WCAG 1.5}.
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
>
From: julian.rickards
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 9:24AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
Yes, I realize that but the strange thing about 1.5 is that it specifically
refers to client-side, not server-side.
"Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links,
provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image
map".
---------------------------------------------------------
Julian Rickards
Digital Publications Distribution Coordinator
Publications Services Section
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Phone: (705) 670-5608
Fax: (705) 670-5690
>
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 9:37AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
ah yes... the infamous "Until user agents..."
Good thing that the WCAG 2 is in draft eh?
I would only caution then that you might also consider providing the title
attribute along with the alt text in the "hot spots" so that Mozilla based
agents will render the "tool tip" on mouseover.
Outside of that, is anyone aware of a *current* user agent that does not
render text equivalents? Then it becomes a question of how far back in
browser history you choose to support.
JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
>
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 10:14AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
>However, server side image maps (rationally more sophisticated - think
>mapquest)
Just to keep the facts straight - MapQuest does not use server-side image
maps - though their maps behave like server-side maps because of an onclick
event on the map.
Jim
Accessibility, What Not to do: http://jimthatcher.com/whatnot.htm.
Web Accessibility Tutorial: http://jimthatcher.com/webcourse1.htm.
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Dec 19 2003 11:24AM
Subject: RE: Lynx and imagemaps
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> ah yes... the infamous "Until user agents..."
But they promise to keep us informed of the situation:
"Note. The W3C WAI Web site (refer to [WAI-UA-SUPPORT]) provides
information about user agent support for accessibility features. Content
developers are encouraged to consult this page regularly for updated
information."
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#until-user-agents
The page referred to,
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/WAI-UA-Support
says:
"Last modified:
$Date: 2001/08/03 17:46:43 $ "
Time to sigh, is it not? About this issue, that document contains mixed
rather irrelevant notes, including the note that "MSIE 5 (Win98) support
tabbing through client-side image maps when the image map image is
loaded." The checkpoint does not refer to any tabbing. It says:
"Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map
links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a
client-side image map."
And as a matter of fact, IE for example, including IE 6, completely fails
to render the alt attribute values of <area> elements. Thus, when the
browser is configured not to show images, or when the image is not
available, or the user cannot see it, the image map is virtually
impossible to use.
To check this, you could use
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/mapalt.html
which contains some image maps, including a map with an intentionally
broken image (to simulate the browser's support to alt attributes).
Hence the time has _not_ come to say that user agent support to image maps
makes the checkpoint outdated. And that time won't come for years, of
course.
> Good thing that the WCAG 2 is in draft eh?
It this a trick question?
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Wayne Dick
Date: Sun, Dec 21 2003 8:51PM
Subject: Locking Document Content
← Previous message | No next message
Help from anyone,
Currently the California State University System prints off all policies and
executive orders in PDF format. Lately they have even been setting all the
security options so tight that I can't use adaptive technology. Now, their
reason for behavior is a perceived need for security. They feel that some
nefarious agent might take online documents, change their content and
publish them as if they were official CSU documents. (I think that is the
worry. That seemed to be what they said.)
I sit on the CSU System Committee on Accessible Technology, so when I
suggested that all PDF documents, which are produced first by word
processors, be placed in standard markup format (HTML, XML, whatever) as
well as PDF format. The Chancellors Office people, especially the legal
people, seem to be very worried by this prospect. Now, I suggested that
they save all documents as in PDF and markup format, post both formats on
the web and simply state that the PDF format is the official document. Then
they could lock up the PDF document tight as a drum, and still have an
accessible document. This would work, but it would have the problem of
consistent versioning. That is, without care the official copy of a
document could be more up-to-date that the markup unofficial version -a
minor danger.
To be honest, I find the Chancellor's Office concerns a little excessive,
but they have much more power than me, so I must listen. They seem to be
happy with the dual format system, but is there a way to lock up markup
documents in a way that they are accessible, but not mutable?
Sincerely, Wayne Dick
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/