- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:02:38 +0200
- To: "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:24:19 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Interesting. So there are few exceptions. I would like to see navigation > by role like access (when this makes it in). > > You could place an optional key assignment here like access and eliminate > accesskey altogether. Doing this would only work if you really have roles for everything. Given that the current move is away from having namespacing in the roles, based on the assertion that implementors will actually hardcode things rather than build an extensible mechnism, that might not be the obvious way to go about it. I agree that accesskey is inferior to most other ways of describing what something does and letting the system give it the default shortcut. But I am sure I can keep coming up with new things a widget will do faster than you can standardise and get implemented every kind of role - so having accesskey as a backstop that lets an author give a hint about what is meaningful would actually be valuable (plus it reminds more authors to think of keyboard access in the first place, with a bit of luck). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com http://snapshot.opera.com - Kestrel (9.5α1)
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 19:03:19 UTC