- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:42:53 -0500 (CDT)
- To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
I think at least Al's suggestion of the suggested SMIL text be added. I think it would also be good to add content related to allowing users to control accesskey behavior (i.e. disable, only move focus) would be important features. Jon ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:34:26 -0400 >From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org> >Subject: Re: [XHTML Access] redefining keys and ensuring user control over "activate" (yes tighten) >To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net> >Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org > > > >On 14 Apr 2008, at 1:04 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > >> >> aloha! >> >> is the ability of the user to redefine and exert control over pre-set >> "activate" values assumed to be the task of the user agent, or should >> there be a specific mechanism defined in the Access Module that >> provides >> for a cascade of commands? >> >> if a user, for example, of a phone interface only has numeric numbers >> available to him/her, how are individual alphabetic characters to be >> accessed? what if the author-defined character used as the "key" >> isn't >> capable of being generated by the user's available "keyboard"? even >> though an "access key" is defined as: >> >> <quote >> cite="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/WD-xhtml-access-20080418/ >> #sec_3.1.2."> >> >> An access key is a single character from the document character set. >> >> </quote> >> >> what if that particular character set is not available, that >> particular >> character is only available through an obscure key-code sequence, >> or if >> the user's UA is using an approximation of (or substitution for) the >> character set defined for the document? >> >> granted, the same section, 3.1.2., also states: >> >> <quote >> cite="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/WD-xhtml-access-20080418/ >> #sec_3.1.2."> >> >> The character assigned to a key, and its relationship to a role or id >> attribute, are a suggestion of the author. User agents may provide >> mechanisms for overriding, disabling, or re-assigning keys. In such >> user agents, user-specified assignments must take precendence. If no >> key attribute is specified, the user agent SHOULD assign a key >> . >> </quote> > >Consider strengthening this to use the language that failed to make >it into SMIL2 only by editorial oversight: > >The user agent must provide a means of identifying the [shortcuts] >that can be used in a [page]. This may be accomplished in different >ways by different implementations, for example through direct >interaction >with the application or via the user's guide. The [access key] >requested by the >author might not be made available by the player (for example it may not >exist on the device used, or it may be used by the player itself). >Therefore the user agent should make the specified [action] >available, but may >map the [shortcut] to a different [user] interaction behavior. > >> this sounds as if a bit of coordination between the User Agent >> Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) working group and the XHTML2 working >> group is needed -- UAAG 2.0, which is still in development -- has >> far more robust verbiage on keyboard support than before, but it is >> still in the drafting process -- i would feel much more comfortable, >> as a member of both working groups, if the language used in the Access >> Module were less vague than that which originally defined accesskey >> in HTML4x/XHTML1.0 >> >> while i realize that there is a reason for the Access Module's >> ambiguity >> on this point, it needs to -- at least -- point to UAAG (or reuse some >> UAAG verbiage) in order to provide -- at least -- a "best practice" >> for >> provideing mechanisms for overriding, disabling, or re-assigning keys, >> especially since the section ends with: >> >> <quote >> cite="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/WD-xhtml-access-20080418/ >> #sec_3.1.2."> >> >> In such user agents, user-specified assignments must take >> precendence. If >> no key attribute is specified, the user agent SHOULD assign a key. >> >> </quote> >> >> whilst i laud the fact that "user-specified assignments must take >> precedence", without a cascade mechanism (or at least definition, >> as in >> "author proposes, user disposes") i am concerned that such language is >> too loose, unless the "must" in that sentence is an RC2119 >> "MUST" (which, >> as far as i can tell, it is currently not) > >per W3C style, 'must' in a spec should be RFC 2119 MUST. > >a suitable disposition of this would be to clarify that that is the >case here. > >> i am also wary of specifying normatively that, in the absence of a >> defined "key", "the user agent SHOULD assign a key." -- again, more >> guidance would be of utmost utility to users, as they would then have >> fore-knowledge of how their user agent assigns key values to access >> elements that have no "key" defined -- after, of course, providing the >> user with multi-modal notification that there are keys defined for >> the following values: x, y, z, etc. and that there are no specific >> keys defined for foo and bar, so foo and bar have been assigned keys >> 1 and 2... > >Defining that cascade in a way that people will actually follow is >a bigger job than this module alone should try to solve. > >The Ubiquitous Web Applications activity is in the process of >reviewing its workplans with an eye to engineering the architecture >for personalization on the Web. That is where the cascade should >come from, rather than a half-baked answer be put in here that >the browsers don't listen to. > >This module does its part for 'author proposes, user disposes' by >putting the focus/fire choice under the control of an attribute >in the DOM where onLoad processing can adjust it prior to the >access element handling any user events. > >Al >> >> References: >> * http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/uaag20/ >> * http://www.w3.org/TR/uaag10/ >> >> gregory. >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> ABSURDITY, n. A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with >> one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devils' Dictionary >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net AND unagi69@concentric.net >> Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html >> UBATS: United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs: http://ubats.org >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D. Coordinator Information Technology Accessibility Disability Resources and Educational Services Rehabilitation Education Center Room 86 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, Illinois 61821 Voice: (217) 244-5870 WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/ WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 13:43:53 UTC