- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:12:48 -0400
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>, Userite <richard@userite.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I agree they would have to be displayed on the page for public sites. I have seen some people create keyboard help areas at the top of the page that are progressively displayed when a visible link in the tab order is focused or activated. Jon On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:41 AM, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > Vivienne CONWAY wrote: > >> Question - do you believe that the provision of access keys would produce a 'pass' grade for 2.4.1? > > For an inside page of a site which people have to log in to, and normally access frequently, maybe. For a page that could be reached by search engines, by unfamiliar users, you would need to explain the access key at the top of the page, and that would probably be more intrusive to the design than a skip link. > > On an earlier point, if a user has to follow a special link to find accessibility features, they are only going to do so if they are desperate to access the site, or they are going to be frequent user. Normally these are done as a sop to accessibility with the hope that they won't disrupt the design. Often they just tell you how to use the general accessibility features of mainstream browsers. > > -- > David Woolley > Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. > RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, > that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. >
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:13:17 UTC