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

Re: Access Keys for Hyperlinks on Web Pages for the Visually Impaired [www-html-editorReference: Role?id=7809]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:06:06 -0000
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "'Orion Adrian'" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, www-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.sz8yjtq2wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Monday my mate and sparring partner John Foliot wrote:

> Orion Adrian wrote:
>>
>> And this [ACCESS element - JF] still has the problem of specifying
>> keys. The UA needs to be
>> responsible for assigning keys and the content needs to be
>> responsible for specifying roles and the W3C needs to be responsbile
>> for creating a standard set of roles that everybody can use.
>
> Yes and I screamed bloody hell when I read that authors would still be
> able to declare specific keybindings.
[...]
> I have also been told, unofficially, that the use case recommendation
> would see a "cascade" type mechanism that would go something like:
>
> 	1)User defined keymappings over-ride all other settings
> 	2)User-agent keymappings over-ride author declared bindings
> 	3)Author declared bindings
>
> We need to ensure that this becomes "codified" into the
> spec/recommendation: that it moves from "unofficial" to "official". This
> also, however, requires the software tools to deliver to spec.  Maybe
> they will. Maybe they won't...  But at least *maybe* the users who would
> be genuinely adversely affected by this may find some relief.

Note that having conflict resolution required by spec, and therefore  
notification of the actual bindings used provided by the user agent, is a  
clear requirement for their use in Compund Documents built by Reference.  
There is plenty of text around that can serve as a basis.

> Therefore, if XHTML2 must contained this flawed functionality, then
> clear conflict resolution MUST be part of the specification

Indeed. As it should have been for several years now. But the mysteries of  
editing drafts mean taht some things appear in early  drafts and some in  
late drafts. What appears in Candidate and Proposed Recommendations is  
what is really critical, although having seen it in previous drafts does  
indeed give comfort...

> BACKING UP A BIT:
> The Draft Authors have stated: "...Author-defined key bindings are a
> requirement of many members of our user community...".

Without entering into the argument on evidence, it does makes sense for a  
site to be able to declare a mnemonic scheme as a suggestion.

> The emergence of ACCESS and @role will allow authors to declare
> intent (which is good!),

Yes

> leave the rest to the user agents.

Well, why not let us have a hint?

>  The reason
> given: "...A good example is a mobile application where links need to be
> mapped to numeric keys..." sidesteps entirely the issue of numeric
> keybindings previously assigned

Yes, this is indeed bad logic.

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, 14 November 2005 21:06:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT