Re: Proposal: Single command input and edits to checkpointsabout "easy access" (2.3 and 10.8)

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