W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > November 2015

Regrets for this week

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:40:09 +0100
To: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.x7wbc7e3s7agh9@widsith.local>
Hi folks,

sorry but I am not available for our meeting time this week.

I've raised a few issues on the "accesskey" spec, in response to the start  
of dicsussion in the Web Incubator Community Group:  
http://discourse.wicg.io/t/user-interaction-with-web-apps/1177

I have tried to clarify that the underlying rationale isn't just  
accesskey, but dealing with the interaction model for apps in general. It  
just seems that of all the proposals around, something based on accesskey  
(or in a worse case something that is the same with a different name) is  
closer to the "right" solution than the alternatives we have so far.

And I have done a bunch of testing - which unfortunately reveals that  
beyond a pretty naive and fragile implementation of the "accessKeyLabel"  
DOM attribute in Firefox, the only part of HTML5's accesskey definition  
that seems to be implemented is the DOM attribute itself.  
https://github.com/chaals/accesskey/tree/gh-pages/tests has the code of  
the test pages, which are intended to be run manually as information  
gathering and include whatever results I have.

At this stage, it seems there is a lot of scope for improving accesskey.  
Like a lot of accessibility features, it seems very weakly implemented  
except for users of screenreaders - and there are significant issues with  
the way browsers have implemented it that make it more or less useless for  
at least some screenreaders too.

Talk to you next week.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 17:40:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 November 2015 17:40:44 UTC