Re: Proposed new Customizationof shortcut SCs to reduce risk of accidental voice activation

perhaps
- a way to turn off shortcuts (A)
- A way to customize any shortcuts (AA)
-  String customization (AAA)

just a thought.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Kim Patch <kim@redstartsystems.com> wrote:

> I don't think the on/off option is a good idea – I wouldn't want to give
> developers an easy way to simply leave a group of users out. I agree that
> if allowing the user to customize with a control key is more
> straightforward than a character sequence, it makes sense to separate
> those at different levels.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim
>
> On 7/21/2016 5:07 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> Agree
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/07/2016 18:57, David MacDonald wrote:
>>
>>> ​​I've moved my proposals to the bottom of your page so it's all
>>> together.
>>>
>>> I think it will be a stretch to force devs to make every hard coded
>>> shortcut a customizable shortcut that accepts a string. But I'm fine
>>> with trying to push it through if its technically  possible. It appears
>>> Jonathan is saying its quite complicated.
>>>
>>> We should however, have a fallback position that helps solve the problem
>>> of colliding keys and VR systems, if the original proposal is rejected.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Jonathan here that listening for a character *sequence*, as
>> opposed to a single character, requires more work on the part of the
>> developer (essentially, the script needs to listen and store any keystrokes
>> that happen sequentially before a certain cut-off/timing - so, for
>> instance, keystrokes that are less than 1 sec apart - and only at the end -
>> when no more keystrokes have been received for 1 sec - look over the entire
>> sequence that was captured).
>>
>> I think we can tentatively draft something up, but I would definitely go
>> for a "a mechanism is available" language, since it may well be down to
>> AT/UAs to handle this (for instance, it could be reasonable for AT to
>> switch into different internal modes depending on whether the current focus
>> is on an editable/text entry field or not...if it's not, it could for
>> instance only interpret very clear specific single characters being spoken,
>> with pauses, to send actual keystrokes, so that if the user says an entire
>> word, it doesn't trigger all those separate keys).
>>
>> Also, as said in IRC/the call, this really feels like a AA for the on/off
>> and a AAA for the customisation.
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Kimberly Patch
> President
> Redstart Systems
> (617) 325-3966
> kim@redstartsystems.com
>
> www.redstartsystems.com
> - making speech fly
>
> Blog: Patch on Speech
> +Kim Patch
> @RedstartSystems
> www.linkedin.com/in/kimpatch
> ___________________________________________________
>