- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:14:30 +0200 (CEST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 28 Jul, Cheryl D Wise wrote: > I don't presume to speak for the organization but my personal take is that > some of the recommendations such as Access Keys may or may not be a good > recommendation to follow. That is an area of considerable debate, which ones This area has been debated extensively, yes. However, I cannot agree with your conclusion - the people I know in the field conclude that the -idea- of document-defined access keys is a good one, but that the -implementation- quite frankly stink. As far as I know only Opera have decent way of separating document-specified and browser-specified shortcuts. However, that is somewhat beside the point. The GAWDS state as one of their goals: "To promote the use of web standards and encourage their adoption." For creating accessible websides we have a standard; or as close as one as makes no practical difference: WCAG 1.0. Selecting which bits and pieces to use based on a local idea of "where appropriate" is fine; but then the standard isn't followed. Hard-headed and inflexible ? No, not really. GAWDS are free to take whichever pieces of the WCAG they wish and apply those to their site; but perhaps they then shouldn't work for standards adoption. This all said, what bothers me more is what I found on http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=58 The need for a trusted "root" is still present. > are available that don't conflict with operating system, browser, > accessibility device/programs already assigned keys. No set of "standard" > available keys that can be relied upon, etc. all make following that > recommendation less than an ideal situation. Again, this is due to UAs being poorly designed. If we were to use only those standards that were not poorly implemented ... well. We'd not use much :) -- - Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/ [+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 15:14:39 UTC