- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 23:55:20 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Geoff Deering wrote: > Yes, where's John? Is he on holidays? Surely he has a bot to alert > him to this discussion:-) Even John has bills to pay - I shut down the 'ol email client today to avoid distractions... Like this one <smile>, and get some work done. Beside Geoff, according to you I've now progressed to a principle... I don't even need to be in the discussion to have my ghost linger on... <huge grin> > > So I think user agents need to provide this level of user > configuration, and I guess the same applies to keyboard binding via > hypertext applications. Which is why I am still in battle with the HTML Editors who somehow feel that allowing the author to bind a specific key to an @role entity is acceptable. I continue to maintain that all the author need do is declare the intent, and leave the binding to the end user, and/or their software. Elsewhere.... I come late to this discussion, and from what I can tell the accesskey debate has been beaten down (thanks to the crew). Which then leaves but one question, why is the author underlining simply one letter within a word? If you remove the need for visually rendering a hint to an accesskey that may or may not be broken, what other reason exists for this type of coding behavior? And more to the point, if it is simply a visual rendering, how is this "important" information being delivered to non-visual user-agents? I realize that these questions have surfaced already, but I take it back to the beginning - why do you need to support this behavior anyway? JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 04:55:42 UTC