[Wikipedia-l] Image maps

[Brion VIBBER]

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Q: Is it desirable to have image maps?  Would having image maps in some
 > places (like the element locator maps) be confusing when they are not
 > available in others (such as geographic maps)?

They would be *wonderful* for geographic maps as well.

Some thoughts:

* An image map must never be vital content, so editors need to provide a 
second set of links (or an indirect link to a list). Ie, two sets of 
things to maintain.

* Like tables, image maps are inherently complex -- shape styles, sets 
of coordinates, links, perhaps alt text per link. We can steal the HTML 
syntax exactly, or try to come up with something cleaner.

* Image maps are likely to be shared over many articles, either with the 
same image or over a group of related images (ie, 58 maps of California, 
each with a different county highlighted; 100-odd periodic tables, each 
with a different element highlighted). Thus, it _might_ be useful to 
have the maps in a magic namespace, which could be linked from the image 
description page -- thus, one image map can be cleanly shared over many 
almost-identical images, in any articles that link the images.

(Custom style sheets could be similarly treated with a magic namespace, 
as I believe has been occasionally suggested.)

Just thoughts...

> It would be neat to have this ability but I'm not sure if it would be 
> desirable given our current non-standard image behavior (that is, clicking on 
> the image brings you to the image description page).

That's another concern, but something could probably be worked out.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)