httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Obsolete modules in 2.3
Date Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:30:30 GMT
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:27, Rich Bowen <> 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.


View raw message