W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: Proposed resolution of LC#112

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:58:11 -0500 (EST)
To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001201756170.1521-100000@tux.w3.org>
Actually for someone who has mobility impairments (the more I type the more I
fall into this category) accesskey would rate as a P2 at ;least. The fact
that it is not as well-specified as it might be is irrelevant, since the
requirement is not "implement HTML with accesskey" - that is a technique, but
"implement shortcut methods of navigating documents - structure walking in
any XML, implementing purpose-designed features in languages which have them
available (HTML, MS Word, ...)

Charles McCN

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Denis Anson wrote:

  Jon,
  
  I agree that we shouldn't allow Accesskey to hold things up, especially
  since the AccessKey specification is essentially incomplete.  AccessKeys are
  shortcuts, but not the only route to links or controls, so they cannot rise
  to a Priority 1 issue.  Since they are conveniences, they are a priority 3
  thing by my understanding.
  
  Until the HTML specification includes behavior for AccessKey, we really
  can't mandate following it, can we?
  
  Denis
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
  Behalf Of Jon Gunderson
  Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:42 PM
  To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
  Subject: Proposed resolution of LC#112
  
  
  We have spent considerable time before last call discussing issues
  surrounding the user interface providing information about the current
  input configuration and the accesskey information to the user.  I would
  like to summarize the discussion and propose a resolution to this issue so
  that we can move the document forward.
  
  Issues
  1. Some user agents provide for user configuration of input controls
  (typically keyboard commands) and other do not allow configuration.  In the
  later case static documentation can be used to provide information to the
  user on the current configuration.  Other checkpoints address the
  accessibility of static documentation.  Static documentation can also
  explain how accesskeys is supported on a particular user agent.
  
  2.  Accesskeys is a currently the only know way to the UA group for authors
  to provide document specific short cuts to links and form controls.
  
  3. Some people in the UA group feel that accesskey specifications are an
  extension to the user interface and the responsibility of the user agent to
  document their existence in a particular document, while others feel that
  accesskeys is part of the authors content and it is the responsibility of
  the author to provide information on their existence in the resource.
  
  4. There are no specifications (other than the markup syntax a UA should
  recognize) of how a user agent should implement accesskey and the UA group
  decided not to try to suggest one.  Currently only IE implements the
  accesskey feature.
  
  5.  Accesskey is currently a priority 3 requirement in WCAG for authors to
  include in their document and a Priority 3 requirement in ATAG for
  authoring tools to support authors including in their documents.  I have
  not seen any requests for changes in priority of these requirements to
  either of these two working groups to raise the priority of the use or
  authoring of accesskeys.
  
  We only received comments from 2 last call reviewers on this issue:
  John Gardner: Combine 10.1 and 10.3 (10.2 in Last Call Working Draft) as a
  priority 2
  Liam Quinn: Leave as is in Last Call working draft
  
  We briefly discussed this issue at the December FTF meeting in Austin.  The
  focus of that discussion was the terminology added to checkpoints "through
  APIs" addition to the checkpoints from the last call draft.  I have
  proposed that this terminology be removed from both in a separate e-mail.
  
  I am not sure further extended discussion on this issue will change the
  view points of members of the working group.  The issue is also primarily
  over providing accesskey information and since other guidelines make this a
  priority 3 topic I don't think it should hold up the UA guidelines from
  moving forward to CR.  There were also no external reviewers that wanted to
  see the current 10.3 (formerly 10.2 in last call working draft) moved to
  Priority 1.
  
  My recommendation is that we do NOT combine the checkpoints 10.1 and 10.3
  and leave the priorities of the checkpoints as stated in the last call
  working draft.  Issue LC#112 is currently an accesskey issue and that since
  there are other ways the user agent is required to provide access to
  elements with associated accesskey information, providing information about
  the current access keys does not meet the requirement for a priority 1.  I
  feel the user agent must document how accesskey are activated (if supported
  by the user agent) and this requirement is covered in other documentation
  checkpoints at a priority 1 level.  Telling the user what accesskeys are
  currently associated with form controls and links in a document I feel is a
  priority 2 level issue, since it only makes it difficult to use accesskeys
  if you do not know the current elements and accesskey specifications that a
  document provides.
  
  Working group members who disagree with this proposed resolution can post a
  minority opinion(s) and these can be carried to the director and W3C
  members during Candidate Recommendation and Proposed Recommentation stages
  for further comment from these working groups.  If the director or any of
  the W3C member companies support the minority opinon(s) the working group
  could readdress the issue at that time.
  
  We will discuss this proposal today.
  
  Jon
  
  
  Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
  Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
  Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
  Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
  College of Applied Life Studies
  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
  WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
  
  
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
21 Mitchell Street, Footscray, VIC 3011,  Australia 
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 17:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:49:51 GMT