W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Key bindings... (user agents - was accesskey was ...)

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:24:47 -0500
Message-ID: <abd6c8010601110524w2af9c33cp95cc98493e3d3436@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

On 1/10/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:
>  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >
> > And the HTML and similar groups should leave that bit of markup alone,
> > fix  their specifications, and let us move on to deal with other
> > problems. (And  my good mate John should see the light and stop
> > worrying about the key  attribute so much, in order to concentrate on
> > getting rel right. But he'll  keep on with both, I guess ;)
> >
> When a foolproof method exists to avoid tom-foolery such as:
>   "Acc<span style="text-decoration:underline;">e</span>ssibility"
> ...then I will rest.  The continued problem with author proposed keys is
> that the author will then set about telling the end user which key it is
> - this is simply human nature - why else choose a specific key if you do
> not plan to share that info?  And if they get it wrong, the same old
> issues as before crop up.
> Declare the intent, and leave the end user mechanism to the end user:
> remember too that we are talking about more than just user agents here,
> there is also the Adaptive Technology layer for those users who need it
> and they often have keystroke requirements as well.
> So it's a balancing act between author rights and needs and user rights
> and needs, between "nice to have" features vs. "possibly really getting
> it really wrong" frustration.  I argue for the least harm principle.
> Chaals has admitted "...the value inside, the hinted key, may even be
> useful at times. Although that's the *least of its benefits* (emphasis
> mine), and the thing that has caused most of its problems."
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2006JanMar/0027.html),
> and further stated that any author who proposes a key without getting
> the role/rel aspect correct should be "slapped" - a sentiment I share,
> but my frequent flyer points cannot support.  How do we ensure that
> developers don't do this very thing? I suggest you take away @key and
> leave them the rest - you can't break what you can't touch.

Funny. I feel the same way about formatting and layout. I'm wishing
for a world where content authors simply write and the browsers do all
the layout and formatting. My question is, why doesn't the same
philosophy apply towards formatting and layout?


Orion Adrian
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 13:24:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:09:01 UTC