- From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:50:02 +0000
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFz-FYzoyFNm5EtJe3NaaKtYZ04w_87ndmn7DRJU8FZ6orJj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
The changes look good, thanks. I think the widget roles it applies to is correct. I don't think there's anything we need to mention about duplicate shortcuts. I think most people would realize that's probably not a good idea and I'm not sure what other advice we should give. On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:42 AM Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dominic, > > Here is a draft of the spec. with the changes: > > https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action2036/aria/aria.html#aria-keyshortcuts > > Please check the text to make sure it matches what you intended. Do you > think Also, do you think we should suggest text to the author regarding the > use of duplicate shortcuts. I have not yet checked to see if there were any > widgets that we missed that this should be applied to. You gave the example > of the like shortcut in Facebook which of course there are many of those. > > Rich > > > On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:31 PM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: > > Dominic's feedback has convinced me we have enough justification to keep > the aria-kdshortcuts feature. > > However, these things should happen prior to publishing: > > 1. Name changed to something uncontracted (e.g. not 'kbd') to match > existing ARIA conventions. (hotkeys or keyshortcuts, perhaps?) > 2. Clarify who the RFC-2119 requirements apply to. > 3. Editorial: Clean up the informative prose, add [ARIA 1.1] to the > description, and fix "Ctrl" examples to match "Control" ENUM specified in > KeyboardEvent. > 3. Dominic requests review with i18n team at Google. > 4. I will request review with i18n team at Apple. > 5. Optional: other vendors (Mozilla, Microsoft) check on the i18n impacts > as well. > 6. Someone (likely Rich as Chair?) emails relevant W3C i18n group(s) > outlining the issues (cc public-aria) and requesting review. > > Thanks, > James > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: > >> In addition, an accesskey replacement spec would have the ability to >> specify end use behavior (and event model changes) in a way that would be >> inappropriate to do in an ARIA spec. Dominic, would you be willing to >> pursue the solution in that spec rather than in ARIA? >> > > I took a closer look. Current limitations of the accesskey spec that I see: > > 1. It doesn't require the user agent to activate the element, it's allowed > to just focus it. That means that if a web app currently has shortcuts that > activate something, switching to accesskey wouldn't achieve the same thing. > > 2. Accesskey still only allows you to specify a single key, the user agent > chooses the modifier keys. This wouldn't help a web app that wants to > trigger when you press an unmodified key, or a web app that wants to listen > for a specific shortcut. > > Here are some examples of real-world shortcuts on six popular sites: > * 'C' to compose a new message in Gmail/Inbox > * Ctrl+Shift+C to do a Word Count in Google Docs > * Shift+A to "reply all" in Yahoo Mail > * 'L' to like the current story on Facebook > * '/' to focus the search box on Twitter > * 'C' to create an issue on GitHub > > The accesskey spec doesn't support *any* of these. > > >
Received on Monday, 29 February 2016 17:50:43 UTC