(unknown charset) Re: Accesskey again

I agree with Ian.  Specs need to have information related to behavior,
especially for behavior that benefits accessibility.

I think for now it is important to encourage developers to implement
accesskey based on their interpretation of the HTML 4.01 spec.  Right now
there are two different interpretations of the HTML 4.01 spec in IE and
NS.  Hopefully these differences in behavior can be harmonized in a future
spec, hopefully through configuration.  I like the idea of the user having
control over final behavior.

Jon


On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

>
> Tantek Çelik wrote:
> > Note that this discussion began as an errata for HTML 4.01 - this important
> > detail was somehow lost.
> >
> > I assert that for an errata, the additional "MUST" requirement is
> > inappropriate and out of scope.  I suggest the following:
> >
> > Errata for HTML4.01:
> >
> >  A user agent SHOULD just focus when an accesskey is used.
> >  A user agent MAY supply a user option to choose between focus and
> >   focus+activate.
>
> I can also live with that.
>
> > Text for XHTML2:
> >
> >  A user agent SHOULD just focus when an accesskey is used.
> >  A user agent SHOULD supply a user option to choose between focus and
> >   focus+activate.
>
> I mentioned in previous emails that I think additional work is
> required on accesskeys. I think the above is inadequate for XHTML2,
> and that, for instance, it would be helpful to distinguish
> navigation stops from activation short cuts.
>
> > The reason for using SHOULD for the user option instead of MUST is due to
> > the fact that it may be very inappropriate for certain devices to have to
> > provide that configuration option.
> >
> > In fact, there are "standalone" UAs, such as web kiosks that don't have ANY
> > configuration options at all.
> >
> > There will also likely be XHTML Basic UAs which do not even connect to the
> > traditional web, but are instead embedded inside a device and there only for
> > a special purpose, having nothing to do with the web.
> >
> > Thus, in general the XHTML spec is the WRONG place user interface
> > requirements upon the UA.
>
> I also disagree with that assertion, though I understand what you
> are saying. My experience with the UAAG 1.0 is that too many specs
> don't say enough about user interface requirements. I would much
> rather UAAG 1.0 requirements appear in format specs (where
> developers may actually read them!) than in a different spec. User
> interface requirements are hard to make, but they need to be real
> close to the other requirements of the format spec.
>
>   _ Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
>

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 09:49:41 UTC