On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:27, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2009, at 11:12 , Nick Kew wrote: > >> Ken Dreyer wrote: >>> >>> (another user's perspective) >>> At my work (US. Geological Survey) we try to discourage webmasters >>> from using server-side imagemaps, since they are not Section 508 >>> compliant. We've had to keep the module to support some legacy sites, >>> but if 2.4 drops it, we can probably migrate any remaining server-side >>> maps. >> >> Hmmm. When I worked alongside some of your folks (joint project - >> I was at ESRIN) we used server-side imagemaps to let users select >> points on a (geographical) map. Any user without the map could >> enter lat/long manually instead, and any clientside solution >> (like scripting, or embedded java/flash) would raise more >> serious accessibility problems (you'd want the serverside map >> as a fallback for accessibility)! > > Client-side image maps have been part of HTML for more than a decade. It > does not require any kind of scripting, java, flash, or javascript. > If the map can be encoded in a way that mod_imagemap understands, you simply > take that map data and put it directly in the HTML. The format is the same. > If the map is complex enough that you can't encode it in a simple text map > file, then mod_imagemap wouldn't help anyways, and you'd need a custom > solution. Forcing a round-trip to the server, rather than putting the map > data in the HTML, doesn't make any sense. mod_imagemap doesn't offer *any* > features that aren't included in the HTML implementation. Even Lynx supports > client-side imagemaps. And client-side imagemaps are completely accessible, > if you do the map right, with comments. Lynx even provides a menu of the > options in the imagemap, along with their titles/comments.
Just torch it. No need to discuss. -g
