- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:28:00 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 06:59 AM 2001-08-23 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >I don't understand what you mean. As I understand it, accesskey is a >structure oriented towards navigation, that was unfortunately a bit >under-specified (tabindex is like this, and map, although the very trivial >problem with map was fixed in HTML 4.01). > >cheers > >Charles > >On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, David Woolley wrote: > > > accesskey function is triggered, and it is a sensible arrangement. Explorer > > uses the Alt modifier, which of course is not available to DoCoMo whose > > browser typically runs on a mobile phone. Opera uses most keys already, so > > Thinking about, the problem is really that access key is a presentational > attribute that got left in. > AG:: David has a point. AccessKey makes assumptions about the delivery environment in a way which is not fully device independent. This protocol is part of what should be reviewed before it moves forward in XHTML 2.0. If we're going to tell the DI people these things have to have 'hint' status, we should see to it that HTML plays by the rules. Or at least I haven't understood it if there is a coherent approach to the blending of input bindings. The device independent methods are "comeToMe" and/or "doMeImmediate" and the UI bindings for these methods have scopes and have to be blendable into the established environment of the delivery context. Al > >-- >Charles McCathieNevile <http://www.w3.org/People/Charles>http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative <http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 >Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia >(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France) >
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 15:08:25 UTC