W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Access Element is WRONG (was RE: Are we really still talking about Access Keys?)

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:23:07 +1000
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
Cc: "'Shane McCarron'" <shane@aptest.com>, "'w3c-wai-ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "'wai-xtech'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'www-html'" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050609012307.GA3333@jdc>

I agree with Charles McCathieNevile's comment on this subject to the 
effect that there is benefit to be gained in allowing the author to 
"propose" a default key binding for an actionable element.

The problem of key conflicts has long been solved, for example in 
assistive technologies, by offering an "escape" or "pass-through" key 
combination that sends the following key combination to the running 
application, irrespective of any conflict that would otherwise occur.

To avoid conflicts, all that is required is for user agents to provide 
an escape mechanism, or comparable functionality, to ensure that the 
next key combination typed is taken as an "access key" to be interpreted 
according to the mapping defined in the Web content (e.g., the current 
XHTML document). It would also be reasonable to request that authors 
choose access keys from characters used in the primary natural language 
of the content (a user agent capable of presenting content in a 
particular language should be able to accept input of the requisite 
characters, and if a more stringent requirement is deemed necessary in 
this regard it can be introduced into pertinent guidelines).

Thus I am in favour of having an "access key"-type mechanism and I don't 
find the objections which have been raised against it persuasive.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:14:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:11 UTC