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: Walser, Kate
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 7:15 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Previous message in thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
22(f) client-side image maps -
In addition to the pixilation issue Mike mentions, we've seen another
issue with client-side image maps. Client-side image maps are being used
more to present organizational charts and hierarchical diagrams (e.g.,
enterprise architecture diagrams and the like). Depending on the tool(s)
used to create the image map, image map pieces may appear out of order
in the HTML code, resulting in the assistive technologies interpreting
them in an odd manner. For example, jumping from the top node to three
levels down and back up and over to the left side of the second level.
The simple fix is to fix the code by ordering the pieces correctly so
the order matches the visual presentation.
This could potentially be covered by the text equivalent standards, but
when no text equivalent exists, the reading order isn't addressed.
Is it worth considering another standard or modification to 22(f) that
talks about presenting items in a logical order or order consistent with
the visual presentation. The "readable without style sheets" standard is
somewhat related, but again, doesn't address oddities like this one.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:52 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps
22(e) For the past 5 years, we have not seen any instances of
server-side image maps being used. Maybe we should try to determine if
this is still a requirement.
22(f) A consideration should be made for screen magnification users who
have issues with client-side image maps as magnification causes
pixilation resulting in text not being clear. Additionally,
contrast/colors can normally not be adjusted.
Social Security Administration
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:13 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps
Current Section 508 wording
* 22(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of
a server-side image map.
* 22(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side
image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available
These are very technology specific. Also, since one of the shapes you
can use for an image map is an infinitely sided polygon, is there any
image map that is not possible to implement as a client side image map?
Does this mean that server side image maps are actually not allowed at
all by Section 508?
WCAG 2.0 does not include technology specific provisions such as these.
There is, however, a requirement for keyboard operation. One way to make
a server side image map keyboard operable is to provide redundant text
links for each active region.