Image Maps and Alt Tags
BigDog
I see a way of small compromising that would make everybody happy.
The large Image map on the left frame of tamu.edu is a client side
map, meaning that all the code for it is in the html. If you mouse
over it, the map displays the path of the link in the bottom of your
borwser (this is assuming you have taken the time to download the
latest FREE netscape or IE. There are no excuses for not doing so).
With some simple JavaScript, the page can be reprogramed to show any
name you want in the bottom instead of the path. If your images are
turned off, and if the image map has size restrictions set up in the
<IMG> tag, mousing-over the empty box will show the name of the link
in the bottom of your browser. The JavaScript would be a one time
thing (this particular piece of code has not changed with new JS's,
and probably will not).
I see this as a compromise that would allow people who like Top-class,
state of the art web sites to enjoy tamu.edu, and the way it
represents our University as a step above the rest, and would also
allow the whining babies who don't want to ever look at an image on
the web (it's just for downloading nudie-pics, right?) to still be
able to use the aTm homepage. Maybe then they can learn about the
advantages of the internet.
Think about it....
-BigDog
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
BigDog (flowm...@tamu.edu) wrote:
: The large Image map on the left frame of tamu.edu is a client side
: map, meaning that all the code for it is in the html. If you mouse
: over it, the map displays the path of the link in the bottom of your
: borwser (this is assuming you have taken the time to download the
: latest FREE netscape or IE. There are no excuses for not doing so).
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
I have no vested interest in the answer to this question, as I have
no particular desires or plans to ever vist the A&M homepage, but
Curiosity nevertheless leads me to inquire as to whether or not you
actually believe that last bit above.
Specifically, do you reckon that an aversion running a slow browser
with a huge footprint which can regularly be induced to segfault
does not qualify as an `excuse' for not using netscape, for example?
How about technicalities like RFC 1866 compliance? Access to
all of ISO-8859-1 (which is of course a subset of the aforementioned
compliance)? Disagreement with the business practises of the
producers of the browsers in question?
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNNq7vA7yGfMg5eedAQGixgQApTi9aOBxtczlwbtw1hMdTHmtraoD0TXJ
FY/YIQCPDIoZcUVTrKhqxpXh1uGC5jHUAKrhLw3wam/eq2EU5FBZdiNU5pNX9Git
4F3DQdms7TdQMBvs0Lv9RA72Hpp6qv89IFO55X7o1fLGTBaddzSKnpLY2kxScZ8j
9n0W6D6DYZQ=
=xXJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Peterson
As a former owner of a very slow Compaq Aero 486 33MHz I can see one
reason for not downloading the latest browser. Even Netscape v3.x was
slow as a dog on this machine. However there is hope with the Opera
browser.
In any case, I'm sure when the new page comes out it will be
drastically different from the present. I have faith in the
creativity and the know how of our web masters... little things like
JavaScript messages at the bottom just don't piss me off enough to
start ranting although I do admit they are a little unnecessary.
JOhn
"Life's a journey so enjoy the ride..."
Permanent E-mail: john_p...@nospam.please.usa.net
Web Page: http://real.resnet.tamu.edu