- From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:00:51 -0500
- To: <danson@miseri.edu>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
This is just the way microsoft implement the function and is similar to what would be needed for form control that has a defined accesskey. Jon At 09:01 AM 5/10/99 -0400, Denis Anson wrote: >Sorry I'm going through these in the reverse order, but there may be a >behavior there that would make my previous missive on ACCESSKEY make sense. > >I had always assumed that activating an ACCESSKEY would activate the link. >But if activating an ACCESSKEY simply moves the focus to the "next" element >with that ACCESSKEY, and a separate keystroke (presumably ENTER) takes you >through the key, then you have a way of navigating links with the ACCESSKEY, >and a way of activating them directly. An unfortunate side affect is that >passing through the link requires two keystrokes rather than one. > >Denis Anson, MS, OTR >Assistant Professor >College Misericordia >301 Lake St. >Dallas, PA 18612 > >Member since 1989: >RESNA: An International Association of Assistive Techology Professionals > >-----Original Message----- >From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf >Of mark novak >Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 11:03 AM >To: Jon Gunderson; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org >Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Checkpoint for ACCESSKEY > >At 9:48 AM -0500 5/7/99, Jon Gunderson wrote: >>Response in JRG2: >>At 04:46 PM 5/6/99 -0500, mark novak wrote: >>>At 3:53 PM -0500 5/6/99, Jon Gunderson wrote: >>>>Response in JRG: >>>> >>>>At 02:51 PM 5/6/99 -0500, mark novak wrote: >>>>>i'd also vote that we do not need a checkpoint for sequential access to >>>>>elements >>>>>which have an ACCESSKEY. >>>>> >>>>>what i'd expect to happen in those cases where more than one element >>>>>had the "same" ACCESSKEY, is that i'd be able to navigate between those >>>>>elements by repeatedly typing that same ACCESSKEY, which is basically >>>>>sequential access of sorts...otherwise, I think we already have access >>to the >>>>>element by virtue of the ACCESSKEY. >>>> >>>>JRG: That was the intention of the word sequential, if you have a better >>>>phrasing please post to the list. >>> >>>MN: wasn't trying to reword, still suggesting this checkpoint is not >needed. >> >>JRG2: What other checkpoint do you see that covers the navigation to >>elements using the ACCESSKEY? > >MN2: I think we are getting hung up on semantics, what i was trying to >say is that I agreed with Charles, in that I don't believe we should have a >checkpoint "requiring sequential navigation to the ACCESSKEY", thats all. > > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>I do have another question however: >>>>> >>>>>Do we need a checkpoint for a "where am I" function, something that >>>>>would return information such as page title, location on page, element >>>>>with focus, previous page title was, summary, etc., while navigating >>>>>with in a page? >>>> >>>>JRG: That is in the section under orientation. >>>>Section 6 in the current guidelines. >>> >>>MN: great. suggest we add a link from navigation section >>>also, it that is easily possible. >> >>JRG2: I think the techniques section is where the different checkpoints >>need to be combined to demonstrate functional implementations of the >>checkpoints > >MN2: where ever you feel it best to reference is fine with me. > > >>>>Jon >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>At 11:00 AM -0500 5/6/99, Jon Gunderson wrote: >>>>>>In response to CMN: >>>>>>The sequential statement is due to the potential multiple definitions >of >>>>>>the same accesskey in a document. If more than one control, link, >label, >>>>>>... uses the same accesskey we want people to be able to navigate to >each >>>>>>one. In the case of single definitions of an accesskey in a document >then >>>>>>the sequential part is a mute point, the focus would move directly to >that >>>>>>associated focusable element. >>>>>>Jon >>>>>> >>>>>>At 11:44 AM 5/6/99 -0400, you wrote: >>>>>>>I don't think that we should not have a checkpoint for ACCESSKEY. I do >>>>think >>>>>>>that a checkpoint requiring sequential access to elements which have >an >>>>>>>ACCESSKEY is inappropriate - the purpose of the element is to provide >>>>access >>>>>>>to certain elements in a non-sequential manner. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Charles McCN >>>>>>> >>>>>>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP >>>>>>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology >>>>>>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services >>>>>>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign >>>>>>1207 S. Oak Street >>>>>>Champaign, IL 61820 >>>>>> >>>>>>Voice: 217-244-5870 >>>>>>Fax: 217-333-0248 >>>>>>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu >>>>>>WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund >>>>>> http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess >>>>> >>>>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP >>>>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology >>>>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services >>>>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign >>>>1207 S. Oak Street >>>>Champaign, IL 61820 >>>> >>>>Voice: 217-244-5870 >>>>Fax: 217-333-0248 >>>>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu >>>>WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund >>>> http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess >>> >>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP >>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology >>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services >>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign >>1207 S. Oak Street >>Champaign, IL 61820 >> >>Voice: 217-244-5870 >>Fax: 217-333-0248 >>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu >>WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund >> http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign 1207 S. Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Voice: 217-244-5870 Fax: 217-333-0248 E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 1999 13:01:05 UTC