W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2006

Focusable points Re: W3C User Agent Teleconference for 3 November 2005

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 02:19:07 +0100
To: "Aaron Leventhal" <aaronlev@moonset.net>, WAU-ua <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s2p8l5kbwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:07:30 +0100, Aaron Leventhal <aaronlev@moonset.net>  
wrote:
I wrote:
>> An alternative would be to define, in format specifications, that  
>> anything that has intereaction behaviour (an event listener, or a  
>> default interactivity), should be focusable.

> Isn't there a problem that an event handler may be on the container for  
> something so that it can listen to the event on any descendant? It just  
> uses event.target in the script to see where the event happened.

Well, there is a problem in the sense that this can be difficult to  
explain. Its effect should (IMHO obviously) be to allow any of the  
descendents to get focus. If there is no explanation of why they might  
have it (such as role information), that's an authoring failure. But it  
they can't be focused in the first place then it's already game over.

> We also have the problem that there are no descriptions for XML event  
> handlers, so even if a user can get there, how will they know what these  
> programmatic event names mean?

True. Actually using the RDF that IBM and others have been promoting for  
describing various interactive objects is probably the simplest answer to  
this, no? (Even simpler would have been having the information in XML  
events already, but there you go).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                     chaals@opera.com
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
      Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Monday, 2 January 2006 01:20:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:51:32 GMT