Re: Accesskey implementations...

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:44:21 +0100, Simon Harper  
<simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> So I really like the look of this!
>
> When you say 'allow users to mark a site as 'don't bother'' have you  
> thought about using IBM TRLs crowdsourcing social accessibility project  
> technology -- to help or contribute to this?
> http://sa.watson.ibm.com/

Nope. That would be closer to the stuff I want to do with enabling sharing  
of preference settings (when they are a bit more useful to start with). I  
outlined some rough thoughts in the documentation page.

> Now also have you thought about allowing an accesskey definition on the  
> page to be a semantic keywork from an approved lexicon - such as 'save'  
> or the like. You could then assign a key based on user preference for  
> certain functionality?

Yep. For about a decade. I think the clear answer is that where there are  
well-known or defined rel values, it's easy to do. But spotting the  
difference between "Save the Whales (Donate now)!", "Guardar fichero",  
"Ahorramas", "oh no, save me", and "save preferences" is somewhat tricky  
otherwise.

The big use case for the rel attribute is that it is a semantic marker,  
with allegedly defined meanings. So you can give it the same behaviour in  
a user agent that enables it for any page which uses it. I guess that was  
why it went into HTML4, and why people make navigation bars to use it :)

In this extension I might look up rel attributes and assign specific  
accesskeys if they happen to arise. That's probably not so hard for a  
handful of common ones, although it might be a bit trickier to make a  
generalisable mechanism that is usable (which is what I want in my  
boil-the-ocean moments...)

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 11:03:13 UTC