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: Jim Thatcher
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 8:00 PM
- 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: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Allan Hoffman wrote "I'd tend to lean towards just keeping the 22E and F
requirements as they seem to work well in practice for now."
Yes they do Allan, except that I know of no application of 22e. Being a
logician by training I think the combination is ... well stupid. It says;
"except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric
The simple fact is that all regions can be defined with available geometric
shapes. No exception. It would be embarrassing to repeat this one.
Equivalent to 22(f) is:
Proposal: 1194.22(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of
server-side image maps.
I know of no example of a server side map that is necessary, let alone
practical. If someone can come up with one, let's write a new provision
1194.22(e) that allows for that. In case you are wondering, none of the "map
companies" that I have checked use server side maps.
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
- Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"
- Previous message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: 22(e) and 22(f) Image Maps"