RE: [WebAIM] More data on accesskeys (New article written Nov. 1)

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

> David Woolley wrote:
> >
> > 3.  I would result in uniform behaviour (for a single browser) across
> >     sites, which would be rejected by designers because it frustrated
> >     branding.
>
> Outside of an obvious anti-commercial slant, please expand on how uniform
> browser behaviour would frustrate "branding".  What makes you think that
> designers would be against a uniform, predictable browser behaviour, given
> the largest complaints generally center around browser incompatibilities?
> JF


probably would work but how would you get the various competing browser
makers to agree to anything. can you imagine Gates sitting down
across the table from Job and Torvalds and trying to come to some
agreement, then include the independent programmers and the big players
like Sun and IBM....  I would love to see that meeting...

don't ever see it happening, and then throw in the control societies that
already try to restrict internet access, they would love something like
that so it would makee restricting access to the internet so much easier.
I'm sure freedom fighters (by whatever name) would love that.

technically it would probably not be that hard.
politically it won't ever happen.


Bob


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
        NO RESPONSE WILL EVER BE GIVEN TO ANY MESSAGE VIA EARTHLINK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve Neither liberty nor safety",    Benjamin Franklin
-   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -
   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named

Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 15:50:28 UTC