In one paragraph
Server-side image maps must not be used identifies image navigation whose destination depends on pointer coordinates. Users need an effective keyboard route to the same underlying choices, not merely an overall link name. Replace or supplement coordinate navigation with suitable ordinary links or a tested client-side alternative. The supplied report omits this rule's review outcomes, so manually assess actual functional equivalence.
Why it matters
With ismap inside a link, pointer coordinates can be sent to the server to select a region or action. The page may not expose the separate choices as individual named links that keyboard users can discover.
Do not claim the attribute alone proves the whole website has no keyboard equivalent. An implementation can already offer ordinary links or another comparable route. WCAG keyboard assessment concerns functionality and the applicable path-dependent-input exception, not a blanket rejection of every technique containing coordinates.
For a selection among locations or products, endpoint choice is usually not inherently dependent on tracing a pointer path. An equivalent list can therefore be more direct than trying to emulate arbitrary pixel coordinates with keyboard input.
How WebAuditOS evaluates this finding
The supplied server-side-image-map rule identifies applicable img elements carrying ismap and sends candidates for human review rather than violations. It does not evaluate the server's region logic or all alternative routes.
The source states the current violations-only report therefore raises no finding here. Its nominal minor impact is not a reported low-severity result. Client-side maps have different area-naming checks and still need complete usability review.
How to fix it
- Locate ismap usage in templates, CMS records, and rendered output. Identify the underlying choices and the server behaviour associated with each coordinate region.
- Check for existing equivalent keyboard functionality before declaring an absolute failure. It must be discoverable and provide comparable outcomes, not merely link to a generic homepage.
- Prefer ordinary meaningful destinations where suitable. An illustrative alternative is:
<nav aria-label="Sales regions"><ul><li><a href="/regions/north">North region</a></li><li><a href="/regions/south">South region</a></li></ul></nav>Use actual matching regions and preserve equivalent information and operations.
- If a visual diagram remains useful, keep it with an appropriate alternative and connect its choices to usable controls. A client-side map can expose individual named area links but needs correct coordinates, focus visibility, and responsive testing.
- Preserve the application's real functions. If coordinates submit meaningful information rather than only select a destination, design a suitable keyboard interaction or equivalent input model instead of deleting the task.
- Update internal navigation and server routing carefully. Existing external or bookmarked routes can need a deliberate compatibility path; do not redirect every old map request to an irrelevant destination.
- Test all choices with keyboard, pointer, touch, zoom, and supported assistive technology where practical. Confirm the keyboard route is as complete as the visual one.
- Record manual review and rescan related link and image checks. The absent review-only finding is not evidence that the coordinate interface is usable.
What the fix can break
Removing ismap without replacing its region logic can leave a single link that no longer performs the intended choice. Review real server behaviour first.
A decorative image description does not enumerate every actionable destination. Preserve the independent navigation choices and their useful names.
Do not promise that switching to a client-side map alone establishes conformance. It changes the mechanism, not every accessibility requirement.
Questions
Does an ismap candidate prove there is no keyboard alternative?
No. Inspect the complete task and any existing comparable route.
Is an overall image alt enough to name every region?
No. Each independent choice needs an appropriate usable identification or equivalent mechanism.
Does WebAuditOS currently report this review rule?
The supplied configuration says review candidates are omitted from its violations-only report.
Which related checks help?
Review active map areas, link names, and the automation limits guide.
What severity does this get in the report?
None, today - the finding is not raised, because axe-core reports every server-side image map as "needs review" and our report contains only confirmed violations. axe declares the rule minor; if it were reported, the mapping of critical and serious to high, moderate to medium and minor to low would make it low.