W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > October 2002

RE: activation / focus and users Re: Access Key

From: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:54:00 +0100
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F024A7B9C@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Cc: w3c-html-wg@w3.org

Doug and others are presenting a case of 
mobile use of access keys.

I'd like that case to be seperated from the accessibility use of
the access keys, unless / until they are proven to have matching
requirements.

DaveP




> I would like to present the view of the mobile browser community and
> say that we very much require the "activate immediately" behavior of
> access keys as they relate to hyperlinks. With the usability 
> of current
> interfaces somewhat strained, every keystroke by the end user matters.
> Movement of focus with the first keystroke followed by activation of
> the link by the second is just not acceptable.
> 
> The notion of allowing duplicate access key bindings is an interesting
> one, though not at all compelling for the mobile browser space. I
> don't think it motivates the "focus immediately approach", though I
> appreciate Tantek's other 4 reasons.
> 
> I feel strongly that "focus immediately" behavior of access 
> key applied
> to hyperlinks in mobile browsers in unacceptable and would not be
> implemented, so I would like to see a solution that would 
> avoid divergence.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration.
> 
> Regards,
> Doug Dominiak
> Openwave Systems
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tantek Çelik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
> To: "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu>; "Charles 
> McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
> Cc: "WAI Cross-group list" <wai-xtech@w3.org>; "HTML WG" 
> <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: activation / focus and users Re: Access Key
> 
> 
> >
> > It appears that we are talking about two different (but at times
> > overlapping) communities of users.
> >
> > (1) Accessibility
> > (2) Power Users
> >
> > I believe that while serving (1) very often indirectly 
> serves (2) as well,
> > (1) should take priority over (2) when conflicts arise, or 
> when designing
> > "default behaviors".
> >
> > I would assert that Charles' use of his "own case" and reference to
> > efficiency places his example in (2).
> >
> > While I certainly understand the plea for efficiency, is 
> there really that
> > much difference in efficiency between:
> >
> > a) type accesskey (with modifier)
> > b) type accesskey (with modifier) and press return
> >
> > ?
> >
> > As far as overuse of hands, consider that typical typist 
> convention is to
> > use the right pinky finger to press the return key, and the 
> right pinky
> > finger is one of the least used from a frequency of 
> keypresses standpoint.
> >
> > I concur with Jon Gunderson's point about sequentially 
> moving the focus
> > among form controls/links with the same accesskey.[2]
> >
> >
> > As far as changing implementations, this is specifically 
> why I raised this
> > issue as a necessary clarification to HTML4.[2]
> >
> > In IE5/Mac we implemented the "activate immediately" 
> behavior of accesskey
> > on hyperlinks based upon literal reading of the informative 
> example(s) in
> > HTML4.
> >
> > Given experience and understanding since, I think this was 
> a mistake.
> >
> >
> > I want to change this in our next major release to "focus 
> immediately"
> > behavior which will have the following advantages (raised by the
> > participants in this discussion):
> >
> >  a) consistent behavior between IE/Mac and IE/Windows 
> (authors like that)
> >  b) consistent behavior among elements (users like that)
> >  c) ability to gracefully handle duplicate accesskeys by 
> rotating focus
> >  d) ability to have focus event handlers actually do 
> something on links
> >  e) increased safety by reducing the chance of accidental 
> link activation
> >
> > The only argument/advantage that I have seen/heard for the "activate
> > immediately" behavior is:
> >
> >  a) greater efficiency
> >
> > Which I believe is not that much anyway, as explained above.
> >
> > The specific errata to HTML4 that I proposed to fix this is 
> documented in
> > [2].
> >
> > If there is sufficient direction of opinion on this issue, 
> would it be
> > possible to achieve a consensus so I that I may move 
> forward with making
> > this change in our implementation in concert with that consensus?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tantek
> >
> > [2]
> >  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-html-wg/2002JulSep/0549.html
> >
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> > Tantek Çelik                                         
> tantek@cs.stanford.edu
> > Tasman Development Lead, Microsoft Corporation        
> tantekc@microsoft.com
> > Representative to W3C CSS and HTML working groups
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> >
> >
> > On 10/1/02 8:49 AM, "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The other advantage of only moving focus is that if the 
> same accesskey is
> > > used multiple times on a page focus can move sequentially 
> between the form
> > > controls or links.
> > >
> > > The HTML spec [1] seems to indicate that links should be 
> automatically
> > > activated.  But the two implementations of accesskey 
> Internet Explorer 5.0+
> > > and Netscape Navigator 6.0+ differ on their 
> interpretation.  IE only moves
> > > focus and NN moves focus and activates the link.  Each 
> technique has its
> > > own advantages and disadvantages, but I think it would be 
> better for the
> > > user if browsers were consistent, and therefore the feature more
> > > predictable for end users.  But I guess this is a mute 
> point since IE and
> > > NN both do something different.  I doubt either will change their
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > > [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#adef-accesskey
> > >
> > > At 11:27 AM 10/1/2002 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > >> What kind of users are we talking about here?
> > >>
> > >> It seems there is a consensus that there are some users 
> for whom the focus
> > >> then activate sequence is an important safety feature - 
> people using
> > >> primarily voice interaction, who may not remember all 
> the access keys, people
> > >> who are likely to bounce on keys by accident.
> > >>
> > >> My own case is different - I have a problem with overuse 
> of my hands, but I
> > >> can (normally) see a lot of information presented 
> visually and it is rare
> > >> that I hit the wrong key, or am surprised by what 
> happened if I did. I
> > >> believe there are a number of people in related 
> situations (I know a handful
> > >> personally) who appreciate the efficiency of the direct 
> activation method
> > >> above all.
> > >>
> > >> I presume there are people who are somewhere between the 
> two - in some
> > >> circumstances they appreciate the efficiency, but in 
> other cases they want to
> > >> use the safety feature. (This is also relevant to 
> Jonny's comment about
> > >> triggering focus events)
> > >>
> > >> Can anyone help provide more data about the user 
> scenarios they are
> > >> outlining?
> > >>
> > >> Cheers
> > >>
> > >> Chaals
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Jon Gunderson wrote (among other things):
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Accesskeys are important for allowing direct navigation 
> to links and form
> > >>> controls, especially web based applications that people 
> use on a daily
> > >>> basis.  When I use accesskeys I always provide built-in 
> documentation to
> > >>> what accesskeys are available in addition to the 
> underlining technique of
> > >>> the key letter in the link or form label.  We have 
> developed a web based
> > >>> database to keep track of disability services here at 
> UIUC that uses
> > >>> accesskeys and works very effectively to speed 
> navigation for screen reader
> > >>> users.  We have a internal link on each page to a list 
> of the available
> > >>> accesskeys on the page[1].
> > >>>
> > >>> My criteria for accesskeys:
> > >>> 3. I think moving focus is better than automatic 
> activation (the IE rather
> > >>> than NN way)
> > >>>
> > >>> Jon
> > >>>
> > >>> And at 10:14 PM 9/30/2002 +0200, Jonny Axelsson wrote 
> (among other things):
> > >>>
> > >>>> Here is a collection of my opinions on accesskey.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would agree with Tantek on the effect of triggering 
> an accesskey.
> > >> While it
> > >>>> is more efficient to do actions with no confirmation, 
> the risk of
> > >> triggering
> > >>>> an accesskey accidentally, together with the 
> possibility that the
> > >> action may
> > >>>> be irreversible (like a POST or even a GET under some 
> circumstances, or
> > >> some
> > >>>> scriptable control), has convinced me that giving the 
> element focus is the
> > >>>> best and most predictable alternative.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While there are conflicting opinions on whether 
> keyboard navigation should
> > >>>> trigger events (navigating using a keyboard would 
> normally traverse all
> > >>>> intervening elements on the way to the target, you 
> would not want to
> > >> trigger
> > >>>> those elements), accesskey should trigger a focus 
> event. It is the keyboard
> > >>>> equivalent to point and click (or rather point and mousedown).
> > >>>>
> > >
> > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> > > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> > > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> > > MC-574
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 06:55:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:37 GMT