W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > February 2005

Re: [meeting] notes and log for 2005-02-01

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:59:36 +0100
To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Cc: QA Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1107334776.10233.87.camel@stratustier>
Le mercredi 02 fťvrier 2005 ŗ 17:24 +0900, olivier Thereaux a ťcrit :
> ** access keys **
> No-one was sure whether we are actually using them (in the markup 
> validator and checklink) in the most "usable, accessible" way, or if we 
> are in fact "stealing key bindings". olivier will discuss that with WAI 
> folks, Ville is to document the access key for checklink if that 
> consultation leads us to keeping the accesskeys.

For what I know (which would be worth double-checking with WAI folks
indeed), access keys have always been difficult to implement, due to the
very problem you're hitting in this case and the difficulty to
communicate their existence to the users. To that end, people have
developed a semi-standard (lowercase s) set of numerical accesskeys -
since they have the advantage not to compete with the browser keys.
They're documented in section 2.4.4 of 
http://e-government.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/Resources/WebHandbookIndex1/WebHandbookIndex1Article/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4000092&chk=KXx42g
"""
S - Skip navigation
1 - Home page 
2 - What's new 
3 - Site map 
4 - Search 
5 - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 
6 - Help 
7 - Complaints procedure 
8 - Terms and conditions 
9 - Feedback form 
0 - Access key details
"""

It's probably a good idea to check with the WAI folks if this a good
compromise, and adapt it to the Validators content.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 08:59:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:45 GMT