W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: PROPOSAL: Checkpoint for ACCESSKEY

From: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:46:54 -0500
Message-Id: <v0300780eb357bde1d699@[128.104.23.196]>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 3:53 PM -0500 5/6/99, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Response in JRG:
>
>At 02:51 PM 5/6/99 -0500, mark novak wrote:
>>i'd also vote that we do not need a checkpoint for sequential access to
>>elements
>>which have an ACCESSKEY.
>>
>>what i'd expect to happen in those cases where more than one element
>>had the "same" ACCESSKEY, is that i'd be able to navigate between those
>>elements by repeatedly typing that same ACCESSKEY, which is basically
>>sequential access of sorts...otherwise, I think we already have access to the
>>element by virtue of the ACCESSKEY.
>
>JRG: That was the intention of the word sequential, if you have a better
>phrasing please post to the list.

MN:  wasn't trying to reword, still suggesting this checkpoint is not needed.


>
>>I do have another question however:
>>
>>Do we need a checkpoint for a "where am I"  function, something that
>>would return information such as page title, location on page, element
>>with focus, previous page title was, summary, etc., while navigating
>>with in a page?
>
>JRG: That is in the section under orientation.
>Section 6 in the current guidelines.

MN:  great.  suggest we add a link from navigation section
also, it that is easily possible.



>Jon
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 11:00 AM -0500 5/6/99, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>>>In response to CMN:
>>>The sequential statement is due to the potential multiple definitions of
>>>the same accesskey in a document.  If more than one control, link, label,
>>>... uses the same accesskey we want people to be able to navigate to each
>>>one.  In the case of single definitions of an accesskey in a document then
>>>the sequential part is a mute point, the focus would move directly to that
>>>associated focusable element.
>>>Jon
>>>
>>>At 11:44 AM 5/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>I don't think that we should not have a checkpoint for ACCESSKEY. I do
>think
>>>>that a checkpoint requiring sequential access to elements which have an
>>>>ACCESSKEY is inappropriate - the purpose of the element is to provide
>access
>>>>to certain elements in a non-sequential manner.
>>>>
>>>>Charles McCN
>>>>
>>>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>>>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>>>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>>>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>>>1207 S. Oak Street
>>>Champaign, IL 61820
>>>
>>>Voice: 217-244-5870
>>>Fax: 217-333-0248
>>>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>>>WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>>>	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
>>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street
>Champaign, IL 61820
>
>Voice: 217-244-5870
>Fax: 217-333-0248
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Thursday, 6 May 1999 18:08:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:48:57 GMT