- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 10:49:30 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> - the other is author interest. If the author is not given the opportunity > to create a complete user experience, they won't create the semantic If they are given the opportunity, they will use it for branding and lock-in purposes. I.E. they will deliberately make it different from the competition, or at least they will choose keys without attempting to obtain a consensus, except where a few de facto standards eventually arise (although the UK government stealing the defacto standard for Save doesn't bode well for that). > identify the top hot-key-able targets in the page. Else, not. We need > them identified; we need the carrot to bring the authors to the table. If you use this psychology, you need to build features into the language that force authors to provide enough information to allows a knowledgeable user, or at least a browser vendor who is not really pandering to the authoring market, to discover the real semantics of the hot key. You can go part way by requiring that the key code always be associated with another attribute, but you can't force authors to use that attribute properly, in the same way that you can't force them to use alt, or Hn properly. Knowing that something is a hot key but has an arbitrary name is still a long way from providing an easy to learn user interface for the whole public web. Without the real semantics, you are in the current situation with other consequences of branding overriding user interface guidelines, that you need an expert user and a custom user style sheet for each site, if not each page, to straighten out the user interface. Generally authors don't want it to be easy to straighten out user interfaces because that destroys the branding and lock-in. One way of forcing an attribute, although vulnerable to the "class='red'" syndrome, is indirection. I.E. you don't allow authors to directly specify the access key, but, instead, they must specify a reference to a seperate element that contains the authors preferred access keys and might also have to contain text that explains the key. The descriptive text and the raw key name probaby ought to be content, so that the key to the access keys gets rendered by default. Actually, I don't really think that XHTML 2 is intended for people trying to, in the marketing jargon, "create a user experience". I think it is more for creating documentation, something that tends to happen within large, technology companies only on intranets and by people with real information, rather than just image, on the public internet. It may well get picked up by the advertising industry (i.e. the popular web), but that is likely to be for the wrong reasons, basically stemming from fashion (looks good on CVs) and because it provides new work for training companies and book publishers who will promote its use to promote the sale of their products.
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2005 10:08:16 UTC