httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: Obsolete modules in 2.3
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:27:35 GMT

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.

Rich Bowen

View raw message