Thread Subject: Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Bailey Bruce
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 7:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Walser, Kate: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Previous message in thread: Fratkin, Mike: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
As we know, 22(f) came from WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 9.1. Does anyone know
how the bit about "regions cannot be defined with an available geometric
shape" got into that document? Did early HTML not allow for polygons in
> Of course for very complex shapes, the client-side code can become
In the past, I have always favored a less mathematically absolute
reading of the provision. Consider a 200 by 200 pixel image (rather
small, actually) with each pixel being clickable (as is the case with
Google Maps and the like). That would be forty thousand hot spots!
> And why text links, wouldn't a form select menu do the same thing in
perhaps a more user-friendly way?
This is, rather neatly IMHO, the way Google Maps solves the problem for
22(e). Or am I being too creative and liberal in giving a pass to