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

Re: direct and spatial mapping to functionalities

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 01:45:46 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19991005014546.009c0100@localhost>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, thatch@us.ibm.com
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 08:46 AM 10/4/99 -0700, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Mousekeys doesn't address the problems people with visual impairments.  The
>problem is more than just not being able to use the standard mouse, it is
>also the perceptual/motor task of lining up the pointer with a target on
>the visual display.  This is an almost impossible task for some types of
>disabilities.  The keyboard support is needed for users, especially people
>with visual impairments, to be able to achieve the same functional results
>as mouse users using keyboard commands.  Many tasks can easily be both
>keyboard and pointer based, others like drawing a bit-mapped picture or
>graphic in drawing program are not. 
>Jon

I totally agree with this. Using some keys in the keyboard as pointing (I
guess that is what you mean by mousekeys) don't solve the problem of having
difficulties in pointing. However, the guidelines (as I read them) did not
make a difference if you used keyboard keys for pointing and got the
functionality in that way or if directly mapped the keycodes to the
functionality.

The keyboard API to me is just a way to get the key codes and as I
understand it the the UA has to do the mapping from the keycodes to the
functions (maybe with help of some routines). If it maps the arrow keys to
emulating pointing, then we are using pointing instead of direct mapping
but conform to the guidelines.

Marja
>
>
>At 10:52 PM 10/3/99 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>This is true, if done correctly. However I think there are some issues to be
>>resolved. 
>>
>>  1. As Marja has pointed out, implementing mousekeys would satisfy the
>>  checkpoint with respect to IE/Opera/Netscape (and a lot of other software)
>>  without satisfactorily solving the problem of access.
>>
>>  2. A minimum requirement is not just to be able to use the keyboard,
but to
>>  provide access to the functionalities through the standard keyboard API.
>>  Although this is the obvious way to do it, it should be stateed explicitly
>>  in the text of the requirement.
>>
>>I think the real question is the interface model - creating a model which
>>relies in a fundamental way on the user dealing with spatial relationships
>>rather than allowing serial or "by-name" interaction with the interface
>>components is the real problem, I think.
>>
>>One of the problems is the way that HTML events were originally implemented,
>>using a fundamentally mouse-based model of the user interface. It should
>>probably be a requirement for HTML-consuming browsers that they work with an
>>improved device-specific event model as soon as one is available. (There is
>>work on this going on in the DOM working group, among others).
>>
>>Please do not stop Marja. I think you have identified a problem we didn't
>>see, and I think you have pointed to the answer too.
>>
>>Charles McCN
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>>  
>>  
>>  MK: Does everybody else understand this perfectly and agree that the
current
>>  wording reflects it? Then I will stop.
>>  
>>  JT: I am not going to ask you to stop, but even if 2.1 is flawed
>>  (and I don't think it is) it should remain as is. The wording is
>>  unequivocal and clear. It is, in my opinion, the most important
>>  checkpoint for access to software for multiple disabilities. Water
>>  it down or generalize it and it will loose its focus and force.
>>  
>>  2.1 By default and without additional customization, ensure that all
>>  functionalities offered by the user agent are accessible using the
keyboard.
>>  
>>  Jim Thatcher
>>  IBM Special Needs Systems
>>  www.ibm.com/sns
>>  HPR Documentation page: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/hprdoc.html
>>  thatch@us.ibm.com
>>  (512)838-0432
>>  
>>  
>>  Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org> on 09/29/99 10:56:43 AM
>>  
>>  To:   Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
>>  cc:   ian@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>>  Subject:  Re: direct and spatial mapping to functionalities
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  At 11:33 AM 9/29/99 -0400, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>  >Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> While thinking about conformance I was looking the guidelines and
>>  >> checkpoints again. I still don't like the word keyboard in guideline
2. I
>>  >> also think keyboard access is not what we want to say in  many
>checkpoints
>>  >> e.g. in
>>  >>
>>  >> 2.1 By default and without additional customization, ensure that all
>>  >> functionalities offered by the user agent are accessible using the
>>  keyboard.
>>  >>
>>  >> So you could use the keyboard arrow keys to point and some other key to
>>  >> select and still conform? Or what about my laptop keyboard with a
finger
>>  >> mouse built into it?
>>  >>
>>  >> I think we want to say something about offering direct mapping from
input
>>  >> device keys to the functionalities as opposite to spatial mapping with
>>  >> pointing and graphical objects. In the first case we usually have many 
>>keys
>>  >> or key combinations that the user needs to remember but no need to 
>>point or
>>  >> see. In the latter case we need to remember just few keys and some
way to
>>  >> point in 2D (or 3D). If we can present the activating of
functionalities
>>  >> with graphical objects or by using force feedback it often helps
memory 
>>but
>>  >> it is slower to get to the functions.
>>  >>
>>  >> I think both mappings are important. The point&click UI with explorable
>>  >> memory aid (e.g. graphical  objects, sound map, force feedback map)
helps
>>  >> cognitively disabled (and everyone with human memory) the direct
mapping
>>  >> helps motorically disabled because some key or morse code etc. can be
>>  >> mapped directly to the function without need to go through the
spatially
>>  >> located object.
>>  >
>>  >There is an analogy with serial access to links (which provides
>>  >context as-you-go) and direct access (which is faster, but requires
>>  >more experience). Explaining the utility of both for access
>>  >to UA functionality would be useful (we already do so for navigation).
>>  >
>>  >However, I think your abstraction overlooks the need that motivated
>>  >this Guideline: assistive technology today relies on software using
>>  >the standard OS keyboard API (please correct me if I'm wrong). This
>>  >Guideline is less abstract than others since it addresses today's
>>  >technology and today's requirements. Device-independence captures
>>  >the principle while talking about the keyboard API captures today's
>>  >need.
>>  
>>  Guideline is not a checkpoint, so it is not what people check, it does not
>>  even have priorities. It is put higher up because it is important, still
>>  this guideline does not need to be conformed always. So I'm confuced.
>>  
>>  Then I look the actual checkspoint under the guideline, such as
>>  
>>  2.1 By default and without additional customization, ensure that all
>>  > functionalities offered by the user agent are accessible using the 
>>keyboard.
>>  >
>>  > So you could use the keyboard arrow keys to point and some other key to
>>  > select and still conform? Or what about my laptop keyboard with a finger
>>  > mouse built into it?
>>  
>>  And I'm even more confused. Here I agree we should mention keyboard, but
>>  when we have mentioned it, it seems not to help. Can I use some of my
>>  keyboard keys (or even my keyboard mouse for pointing) and conform to
this?
>>  I don't think this is what we want.
>>  
>>  Does everybody else understand this perfectly and agree that the current
>>  wording reflects it? Then I will stop.
>>  
>>  Marja
>>  
>>  
>>  >I am not yet convinced (but still open!) that presenting the
>>  >Guideline as requiring direct v. serial access to UA functionality
>>  >will adequately address the requirement of today's technology.
>>  >
>>  >Please let me know if my comments reflect an understanding of
>>  >your suggestion.
>>  >
>>  >Thank you,
>>  >
>>  > - Ian
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >> A separate thing is then how to present all this. If the user can
see she
>>  >> can have memory aid on the screen (or even paper) also for directly
>mapped
>>  >> keyboard events, if she cannot she needs to rely more on memory. On the
>>  >> other hand she may use spatial mapping and exhaustive spatial search
with
>>  >> sound or force feedback to help her memory. The graphical object model
>>  >> provides the memory aid naturally but can also be badly designed.
>>  >>
>>  >> Marja
>>  >
>>  >--
>>  >Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>  >Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
>>  >Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>>  >
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>>--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
>Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
>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.w3.org/wai/ua
>		http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 01:50:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:24 UTC