- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:16:58 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 12/07/2016 06:25, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > Yes all of this is not surprising at all. > > I don’t know what it has to do with the topic at hand however. It > doesn’t change the discussion or arguments or importance of the keyboard > access provision. Nor does it change the fact that any other device > independent commands should be a separate success criteria. And nowhere did I claim that it did change the discussion or argument. I'm simply adding information here in this thread, mainly to provide additional data points to reinforce my point about this not being just an issue pertaining purely to touchscreen+AT, but that there are other input mechanisms that are not mouse/pointer based but also not "keyboard" in the "sends keystrokes" sense that is currently defined in WCAG 2.0 > Any really advanced technology will be programmed to interact directly > with the content in the most efficient way that it can. > Screen readers are another example where the access is direct it does > not go through the keyboard interface. > > This does not have anything to do with other types of ATV which function > only through the keyboard interface. For example a sip and puff interface. And I didn't claim it did. But thanks for jumping back into the discussion. > The keyboard interface provision is not there because it is the only way > anything controls things. Is there because it is the only way some > things can have access to the content. > > ciao > > /gregg/ -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 22:17:24 UTC