W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE StickyKeys

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:18:30 -0600
To: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a501c5f85f$e1495bf0$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>
 

RE the StickyKeysT 

We do say things should be operable from the keyboard - but we don't have a
requirement for not having simultaneous access.  

 

I thought about that when this was posted.  Came to the conclusion that any
interfaces in web content would be like applications.  As long as they don't
defeat access in some way they do not need to do the job of the OS.    And a
java applet can't override the OS keyboard functions in a way to defeat
this.  

 

So StickyKeys would not need to be anything we require in WCAG.   (Nor any
other OS like functions) 

 

 Thanks for raising this though.   For awhile there I thought we had missed
something.   Were there any other non-OS access items? 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:07 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG); w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Missing criteria from WCAG 2.0?

> ISO 16071 is now 9142-171 and is heading for Candidate Draft.
> It is originally based upon (and is harmonized with) HFES 200.3
> Both are software accessibility guidelines.

Do either of those have anything in the public?

> StickyKeys and functions like it are supposed to be done in OS
> and honored by applications. 

Yes, that is how it is *suppose* to work.

> But if an [application?] overrides the OS then it inherits the
> responsibility for providing the OS functions.

Can Java applets override the OS in this regard?
If so, shouldn't there be a check for this in WCAG?
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2005 23:18:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT