Re: access module summary

aloha, jim!

what follows are my comments on your analysis of the state of the access 
module re-wording -- i have used four equals signs to indicate a change 
of topic/verbiage under consideration...

CURRENT PROPOSED RE-WORDING 1:
The rendering of access keys depends on the user agent. We recommend that
authors include the access key in label text or wherever the access key is
to apply. <DEL>User agents should render the value of an access key in such
a way as to emphasize its role and to distinguish it from other characters
(e.g., by underlining it).</DEL>

<jim>I think the deleted section should stay. The author can only label what
the author knows about. And, should provide that information for all users.
IF a user chooses to change the binding, it should persist across sessions
(a UA issue not for this document).</jim>

GJR: i agree, jim, but also understand why others are reluctant to retain
it...  

PROPOSED GJR: The rendering of access keys depends on the user agent. We 
recommend that authors include the access key in label text or wherever 
the access key is to apply. User agents should render the value of an 
access key in such a way as to emphasize its role and to distinguish it 
from other characters <INS>in a manner consistent with the user's 
pre-defined preferences.</INS> <DEL>(e.g., by underlining it).</DEL> If 
a user chooses to change the key binding, the resultant user-defined 
remapping SHOULD/MUST persist across sessions.


====
CURRENT PROPOSED RE-WORDING 2:

The activate attribute indicates whether a target element should be
activated or not once it obtains focus. The default value for this attribute
is "no", indicating that the element will not be "activated". User agents
<INS>must provide a means of identifying the shortcuts that can be used in a
document. 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 key defined by the author might not be made
available by the user agent (for example, it may not exist on the device
used, or it may be used by the user agent itself).</INS>

<jim> suggest removing the <ins> seems redundant give previous paragraphs
about override and centralized view. The <ins> seems more of a UAAG
technique.</jim>

GJR: the original (14 april 2008) Access Module draft contains the 
following, which the INSerted text was meant to clarify -- if the WG
agrees that enough clarification has already been provided, shall we
return the paragraph to its original wording:

ORIGINAL WORKING DRAFT WORDING:

The activate attribute indicates whether a target element should be 
activated or not once it obtains focus. The default value for this 
attribute is "no", indicating that the element will not be "activated". 
User agents may provide mechanisms for overriding the setting of the 
activate attribute. In such user agents, user-specified settings must 
take precendence [sic]. 

GJR: i would still prefer that we make the "must" in the final sentence
a normative RFC2119 "MUST", and am sorely tempted to change: "User 
agents may provide" to (at the VERY least) a normative RFC2119 "SHOULD",
so that the last 2 sentences would read

<GJR2>
User agents SHOULD provide mechanisms for overriding the setting of the 
activate attribute. In such user agents, user-specified settings MUST  
take precedence.
</GJR2>

====
CURRENT PROPOSED RE-WORDING 3:

<INS>Therefore, the user agent MUST make the specified action(s) available,
but may map the shortcut to a different user interaction behavior. Note that
timely notification of any remapping or reassigning of an author-defined
"key" MUST be issued to the user through the user agent's native interface,
so that the user is aware of the reconfiguration. A user agent SHOULD
provide a broad option of alert mechanisms, all of which must be issued in
conformance with user-defined settings for alert mechanisms (for example, if
an audio file is played to signify remapping or reassignment, it must be
fired in such a way that the operating system's "Show Sounds" or "Sound
Sentry" or equivalent mechanism can be used to alert a user whose device is
incapable of rendering the aural cue or for whom the processing of an audio
clip is either impractical or impossible).</INS>

<jim>This also seems like a UAAG technique. To me, it provides too much
information for the Access Module. I think the statements and references in
the previous paragraph referencing relevant checkpoints is sufficient. This
<ins> should be deleted </jim>

GJR: if we delete the paragraph from the current re-wording, as you 
recommend, then we should add it (the spirit of the principle, if not the 
actual wording) to UAAG 2.0's discussion of discovery and alerts (at the
very least in the techniques document), especially as, once the access 
module is sent to LC by the XHTML2 WG, i plan on submitting it to the HTML 
WG, as per the initial request of the HTML WG by al gilman on behalf of 
PF/WAI, archived at:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0903.html

which specifically calls for either adoption or adaptation of the ACCESS 
element into HTML5...

gregory.

---- Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:

> Open issues
> 1. Gez question about "Persistence" of users override of author "key" value.
> This should go in Keybinding
> 2. Keybinding - see comments below
> 
> 
> Unless there are serious issues related to the AccessElement and the
> ActivateAttribute (approve wording below) I would like us to focus on the
> Keybinding editing.
> 
> We have approved the following wordings:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wiki/AccessModule/AccessElement
> The access element assigns an accessibility mapping to elements within a
> document. Actuating the mapping results in the element gaining focus (either
> the document focus or an inspection focus, as determined by the user agent),
> and, if set by the author and permitted by the user's settings, in one or
> more other events being activated.
> =======
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wiki/AccessModule/ActivateAttribute
> The activate attribute indicates whether a target element should be
> activated or not once it obtains focus. The default value for this attribute
> is "no", indicating that the element will not be "activated". User agents
> may provide mechanisms for overriding the author setting with user-specified
> settings in order to ensure that the act of moving content focus does not
> cause the user agent to take any further action, as required by UAAG 1.0,
> Checkpoint 9.5.
> 
> In any case, user agents MUST provide keyboard mechanisms for "activating"
> any event associated with the focused element, as required by UAAG 1.0,
> Checkpoint 1.2.
> ======
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/wiki/AccessModule/KeyMappingBinding
> 
> This attribute assigns a key mapping to an access shortcut. An access key is
> a single character from the document character set. (editor's note: the
> following sentence should either be moved or deleted entirely) <DEL>Note:
> Authors should consider the input method of the expected reader when
> specifying an accesskey.</DEL>
> <jim> ok </jim>
> 
> Triggering an access key defined in an access element changes focus to the
> next element in navigation order from the current focus that has one of the
> referenced role or id values. Note that it is possible to deliver alternate
> events via XMLEVENTS. It is also possible to have the target element
> activated through the use of the activate attribute. Finally, it is possible
> to associate additional event handlers with target which might then perform
> additional actions once focus is changed. <INS>If an element accepts
> multiple events that dispatch different actions, the user agent MUST provide
> a way for the user to discover the all events, which events are available,
> and how they are triggered.</INS>
> <jim> I have concerns about the <ins> about multiple events, the activate
> will only active one thing. </jim>
> 
> An access element <INS>MUST</INS> have either a targetrole or a targetid
> attribute specified. If neither a targetrole nor a targetid attribute are
> specified, the user agent MUST NOT define a mapping nor deliver any events.
> <jim> ok</jim>
> 
> The invocation of access keys depends on the implementation. For instance,
> on some systems one may have to press the "alt" key in addition to the
> access key. On other systems, one generally has to press the "cmd" key in
> addition to the access key. A conforming user agent MUST allow the user to
> override any author-defined binding.
> <jim> ok</jim>
> 
> The rendering of access keys depends on the user agent. We recommend that
> authors include the access key in label text or wherever the access key is
> to apply. <DEL>User agents should render the value of an access key in such
> a way as to emphasize its role and to distinguish it from other characters
> (e.g., by underlining it).</DEL>
> <jim>I think the deleted section should stay. The author can only label what
> the author knows about. And, should provide that information for all users.
> IF a user chooses to change the binding, it should persist across sessions
> (a UA issue not for this document).</jim>
> 
> 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 precedence. <INS>A conforming
> user agent MUST allow the user to override any binding that is part of the
> user agent default input configuration except for conventional bindings for
> the operating environment (e.g., for access to help). The keyboard
> combinations offered for rebinding SHOULD include single key and key plus
> modifier keys if these are available in the operating environment, as
> specified in UAAG 1.0, Checkpoint 11.3</INS>
> <jim> ok</jim>
> 
> If no key attribute is specified, the user agent MUST assign a key.
> <INS>When a user agent assigns key values to access elements that have no
> key defined for them, the user MUST provide the user with multi-modal
> notification that keys have been 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.</INS>
> <jim> ok - "the user MUST provide the user with multi-modal..." should be
> "the user agent MUST provide the user with multi-modal..."</jim>
> 
> <INS>A conforming user agent MUST also provide a centralized view of the
> current author-specified input configuration. (UAAG 1.0, Checkpoint
> 11.2)</INS>
> <jim> ok</jim>
> 
> The activate attribute indicates whether a target element should be
> activated or not once it obtains focus. The default value for this attribute
> is "no", indicating that the element will not be "activated". User agents
> <INS>must provide a means of identifying the shortcuts that can be used in a
> document. 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 key defined by the author might not be made
> available by the user agent (for example, it may not exist on the device
> used, or it may be used by the user agent itself).</INS>
> <jim> suggest removing the <ins> seems redundant give previous paragraphs
> about override and centralized view. The <ins> seems more of a UAAG
> technique.</jim>
> 
> <INS>A keyboard user will not know the value of activate when invoking the
> appropriate 'key' defined for an ACCESS element. A conformant user agent
> MUST, therefore, allow the user to exercise control over the user interface
> in accordance with the requirements set forth by the User Agent
> Accessibility Guidelines, 1.0 [UAAG10]:
> 
>     *
> 
>       Allow the user to activate, through keyboard input alone, all input
> device event handlers that are explicitly associated with the element
> designated by the content focus. (UAAG 1.0, Checkpoint 1.2)
>     *
> 
>       Allow configuration so that moving the content focus to or from an
> enabled element does not automatically activate any explicitly associated
> event handlers of any event type. (UAAG 1.0, Checkpoint 9.5)
>     *
> 
>       For the element with content focus, make available the list of input
> device event types for which there are event handlers explicitly associated
> with the element. (UAAG 1.0, Checkpoint 9.6)</INS> 
> <jim> ok</jim>
> 
> <INS>Therefore, the user agent MUST make the specified action(s) available,
> but may map the shortcut to a different user interaction behavior. Note that
> timely notification of any remapping or reassigning of an author-defined
> "key" MUST be issued to the user through the user agent's native interface,
> so that the user is aware of the reconfiguration. A user agent SHOULD
> provide a broad option of alert mechanisms, all of which must be issued in
> conformance with user-defined settings for alert mechanisms (for example, if
> an audio file is played to signify remapping or reassignment, it must be
> fired in such a way that the operating system's "Show Sounds" or "Sound
> Sentry" or equivalent mechanism can be used to alert a user whose device is
> incapable of rendering the aural cue or for whom the processing of an audio
> clip is either impractical or impossible).</INS>
> <jim>This also seems like a UAAG technique. To me, it provides too much
> information for the Access Module. I think the statements and references in
> the previous paragraph referencing relevant checkpoints is sufficient. This
> <ins> should be deleted </jim>
> 
> Jim Allan, Webmaster & Statewide Technical Support Specialist
> Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
> 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
> voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
> "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

-- 
"He who lives on Hope, dies farting."
  -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack
-- 
Gregory J. Rosmaita, unagi69@concentric.net
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/

Received on Sunday, 11 May 2008 18:06:34 UTC