W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: Not described in words

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:15:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA857@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I had the good fortune to catch Gregg in DC.  I took advantage of circumstances to pester him unmercifully about 2.1.1...

SH> Why are games not valid?

Games are perfectly valid!  Which is why I was seeking clarification bout "operable through a keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for individual keystrokes".  Why should games (like Frogger or Pong or Tetris) fail 2.1.1 when they are keyboard accessible?

This Success Criteria is about *how* the keys are activated and not *when* -- so, as written, 2.1.1 does *not* automatically fail keyboard accessible games.

LGR> Consider auto repeat functionality on a keyboard key.

Auto repeat, like Sticky Keys, is a feature of the operating system -- and therefore not a problem that needs to be addressed by WCAG.  (Although it does come up for 508.)

BB> Why have that clause?

Gregg already provided a couple examples on the list.  What I find even more compelling is that the phrasing is necessary to ensure that a developer not integrate a Mouse-Keys-Like feature into a web application as a way to satisfy the requirement for keyboard accessibility.
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:15:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:49 GMT