E-mail List Archives
Re: image maps
From: Michael Goddard
Date: Sep 17, 2001 11:45AM
- Next message: Leo Smith: "gifs and maps"
- Previous message: Leo Smith: "image maps"
- Next message in Thread: Leo Smith: "gifs and maps"
- Previous message in Thread: Leo Smith: "image maps"
- View all messages in this Thread
That is interesting! Would you happen to have a link or something relevant
so that I can look up more on this particular tip? I am confused on exactly
where you would place the transparent gif. Since physically 2 images cannot
occupy the same placeholder space??
Thank you for the information.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Smith" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: "WebAIM forum" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:26 AM
Subject: image maps
> I actually heard of this technique on a web developers listserv that I
> belong to. As far as I understand it, I think this is how it goes:
> As has been discussed, with images turned off in a browser, the alt
> text or title text for each hotspot does not display - only the alt text
> for the actual image used for the image map does. I am presuming
> this is the reason for the W3C Priority 3 guideline saying to provide
> redundant text links for each hotspot until browsers render the text
> Instead of providing a set of visible redundant text links duplicating
> each hotspot link, the transparent gif idea would be to have,
> instead, transparent gifs duplicating the links. The gifs would
> merely provide a placeholder for a duplication of each image map
> link, with associated alt text for each gif describing which link each
> gif was for. The actual gif image itself is irrelevant - it just acts as a
> placeholder for the href and the alt text. Then with images off, the
> alt text for these dupicate links WOULD be displayed by a browser.
> As far as screen readers are concerned, as I understand it, most
> readers will read alt text for the hotspots OK, whether images are
> switched on or off in the browser. However, if a reader did not,
> these gifs would also provide links and alt text that could be read
> by a reader just like any image used as a link can be read be a
> So, basicly, the transparent gifs are a way of invisibly providing the
> redundant links that the priority specifies, except that they would
> not be text ones, but image links. The advantages I can see from
> going this route is that the page would not be cluttered with a group
> of redundant text links (sometimes image maps can have a lot of
> links), which might be confusing for those not requiring them.
> Hope that makes sense...
> Have a great week all!
> On 14 Sep 2001, at 14:14, WebAIM accessibility forum wrote:
> > I still do not understand this! I know about transparent gifs
> > etc..BUT and a big BUT a transparent gif is STILL an image and if the
> > browser is set to not show images then why in the hell is it showing
> > the transparent gifs? Anyone care to enlighten me on that one!?
> > Hmm..It might be possibly the "title" that needs to be specified for
> > the <area> element. I will have to try this later to verify it.
> > Thank you for the information.
> > Michael
> Leo Smith
> Web Designer/Developer
> USM Office of Publications and Marketing
> University of Southern Maine