W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Should accesskey focus or activate?

From: Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:17:20 -0500
Message-Id: <200104250117.KAA79760@bourbon.access.sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: Aaron Leventhal <aaronl@chorus.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, mozilla-accessibility@mozilla.org, joki@netscape.com
I think I've made some comment regarding this issue some time ago, 
but I can't remember when and where.  (Probably on wai-ua list?)

Like Al says below, it should be customizable depending on users' 
needs.  Besides the points Al mentions, difference in the input 
method makes difference in users' needs.  (Al might have meant the 
same thing by ``command type,'' though.)

If voice input is in use, and user is able to look at the content, 
accesskey can probably used to activate.  But otherwise, i.e., users 
cannot see the content, or corresponding part is not displayed on 
the screen, then it shouldn't activate unless user knows what 
exactly he/she is doing.

These are just a few points that makes me believe it should be 
customizable.  I think there are more cases where this 
customizability would help.  As the default setting, maybe 
"not-activate" is better, though.


On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:50:01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
> It may depend on the type of interaction mode [what kinds of command and
> display are in use, and how easy they are for this user to use].  
> It is not clear it is safe to assume that the right answer can be determined
> from the control type alone.  What you don't know from the destination control
> type is whether the user had the opportunity to review the nature and state
> the
> control before activating the accesskey or not.
> On the one hand, eyes-free users are more likely to need the ability move to
> the hotkey designated control, inspect what is there, and then decide how to
> act on it.  Compare with why a low vision programmer instigated the
> addition of
> the 'navigate but do not activate' option to the Lynx keystroke commands:
> Re: LYNX-DEV new command: 123 g
> <http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month041997/msg00832.html>http://www.fl
> ora.org/lynx-dev/html/month041997/msg00832.html
> On the other hand motor-impaired users who can see the full screen really
> don't
> want to have to take an extra step.  They want to be able to tell the browser
> JustDoIt.
> Users vary in how verbose they want their prompting.  Likewise how abrupt they
> want the system response.  For different disabilities, access to either end of
> this tuning spectrum may be critical.  So there may need to be
> adjustability in
> this protocol to deal with the variety of needs.
> Al
> At 05:10 AM 2001-04-24 -0700, Aaron Leventhal wrote: 
> >
> > Hello all, a Netscape developer wanted to know whether accesskey should
> focus
> > or activate controls, or whether it depends on the type of control.
> > Here's his question in detail:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hey Aaron,>> >> I wanted to get your opinion as accessibility guy on bug
> 55020, it's a>> question of whether or not access keys should just focus
> the element in>> question or focus and activate it.  You're cc'd on the
> bug, I'm not sure>> if you've read it.  The bug has some valid points about
> accidental>> activation of access key based items, especially since we
> allow the>> accesskeys to beat out things like alt-F for menu opening.>> >>
> So currently we focus and activate everything.  I tend to agree with the>>
> bug writer that we should move to only focusing things.  All of the>> items
> can be keyboard triggered from there so a full keyboard solution>> still
> works.>> >> And just for extra info's sake, IE's solution is, I think, a
> bit unusual. >> They use a mix of focus and activation.  Buttons, for
> example, are>> activated.  Links, however, are not.  Text fields just get
> focus butwhat does activation of a text field mean anyway.  IE also
> overrides>> stuff like alt-F when an accesskey of that letter is in use.>>
> >> So anyway, I'm just curious if you have an opinion from an
> accessibility>> point of view.  My current stance is to go with the bug's
> solution and>> start doing focus only unless more arguments arise in favor
> of>> activation.>> >>    -tom>> </pre>>> <font size=3></blockquote>--
> <br>>> For information about Netscape and Mozilla Accessibility projects,
> please see the <a href="http://access-mozilla.sourceforge.net">Access
> Mozilla</a> website.<br>>> To join the mozilla-accessibility mailing list,
> send email to <a
> href="mailto:mozilla-accessibility-request@mozilla.org?subject=subscribe">mo
> zilla-accessibility-request@mozilla.org</a>, subject
> &quot;subscribe&quot;.<br>>> </blockquote><br>>> </font></html>>>
> >
> > -- 
> > For information about Netscape and Mozilla Accessibility projects, please
> see
> > the <http://access-mozilla.sourceforge.
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 21:17:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:12 UTC