W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: [Clarification] "Single key means single physical key"

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:39:23 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20010312124920.042d7340@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 11:58 AM 2001-03-12 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>In the 9 March 2001 UAAG 1.0 [1], we refer to "single key" bindings
>in checkpoint 11.3 (we also refer to "modifier keys"). I think we
>need to clarify that this refers to actual physical keys on a keyboard,
>not signals sent by the hardware. The accessibility requirement involves
>limited physical movement. 
>I would also note that I do not believe that there are any
>internationalization issues here. On systems where a user must
>use several keystrokes to compose a single (abstract) character, we
>still want single-physical-key access for users.
>Therefore I propose clarifying in checkpoint 11.3 that when
>we talk about "keys" we are referring to physical keys.

The unit of user action in the usability requirement for people with motor
disabilities is a single keypress, yes.

The device independence requirement is that key events not be hard-bound to
physical keys on any specific keyboard device.  This can be satisfied at the
same time that the User Agent provides the configurability.

There are internationalization issues shot through the topic of key bindinds,
but there is no necessary _conflict_ between device-adaptability for
internationalization and the device-plus-user adaptation to make frequently
used actions identified by the user readily available by binding them to
keypresses on whatever [international or assistive] key device the user has.

I believe that what you meant is compatible with the device independence
concerns and what Denis said.

Let't go for actual draft replacement language and see if that passes muster. 
This was a little impressionistic.



On the other hand, the requirement of "at least a majority" of the default key
bindings would seem to be infeasible in many situations.  The group should
reconsider this language.  If the default key binding defines a full set of
single-key plus two full layers of modified-key bindings, then there is _no
way_ to reduce a majority of the actions defined [in the default key binding]
to single-key bindings.  Never mind if there is a one-hand, large-key, or
twelve-key device in use.  You just can't get there from here.

What were we thinking?


> - Ian
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)  
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 14:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC