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

Re: PROPOSAL: Checkpoint for ACCESSKEY

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:58:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
cc: mark novak <menovak@facstaff.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905071055550.27875-100000@tux.w3.org>
7.1.1 Priority 1 Support Accessibility features for HTML

seems to cover it for me.

Charles

On Fri, 7 May 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  We have no specific checkpoint in the current WD, so I would like to
  document that the group would like to include a specific checkpoint.  For
  the accesskey attribute I recommend that we have a specific checkpoint.
  Jon
  
  
  At 11:04 PM 5/6/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >There was such a checkpoint in the previous draft. I haven't checked the
  >document, but I was under the impression that this had not been dropped. Some
  >time ago I suggested that this checkpoint be clarified to specify exactly
  >what kind of information was necessary.
  >
  >Charles
  >
  >On Thu, 6 May 1999, mark novak wrote:
  >  
  >  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?
  >  
  >  
  >  
  >  
  >  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
  >  
  >  
  >  
  >
  >--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
  >phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
  >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  >MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  > 
  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
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 7 May 1999 10:58:38 GMT

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