- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:11:14 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > I think the concept of "single command" as proposed by Ian [1] is a unique > concept to the keyboard and I proposed that like checkpoint 1.3 that > checkpoint 10.5 be only about the keyboard. I propose that we say that > checkpoint 10.5 is a special case of both checkpoint 10.4 and checkpoint > 1.3. This is interesting. I wondered yesterday (when writing the email) whether single command should be w.r.t. the keyboard only. However, I thought that one could (logically) justify preferring shorter phrases just as one prefers shorter key combinations. >This way we can use the term "single command" to mean a more generic > command in checkpoints we talk about configuration and single command would > include concepts like a speech utterance, key press with or without a > modifier key, or clicking an object with a mouse. In checkpoint 10.5 we > can use the term "single key press" and make it clear that this is without > a modifier key. > > What do people think? I don't think the term "single command" that has variable meanings (e.g., key press with or without modifier) is useful. What is the difference, at that point, between "Ctrl-X" and "Ctrl-X Ctrl-Y Ctrl-Z"? What is the boundary of a single command? I understand the desire to have easy, simple, direct access. However, I don't think that "single command" is any more precise. And, as I mentioned, I think using the term "single" in two contexts is dangerous. In conclusion, I think that making 10.5 for the keyboard only is an interesting option that I could live with. But I don't want to use the term "single command" in the document. _ Ian > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0134.html -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2000 12:12:07 UTC