- From: John Foliot - WATS.ca <foliot@wats.ca>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:53:01 -0500
- To: "'Orion Adrian'" <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, <www-html@w3.org>, <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Orion Adrian wrote: > > And this [ACCESS element - JF] still has the problem of specifying keys. > The UA needs to be > responsible for assigning keys and the content needs to be > responsible for specifying roles and the W3C needs to be responsbile > for creating a standard set of roles that everybody can use. Yes and I screamed bloody hell when I read that authors would still be able to declare specific keybindings. I have raised the issue officially, and it seems that the Draft authors are determined to continue to allow authors to bind keystrokes, although the justification is weak IMHO (http://hades.mn.aptest.com/cgi-bin/xhtml2-issues/Role?id=7809) I have also been told, unofficially, that the use case recommendation would see a "cascade" type mechanism that would go something like: 1)User defined keymappings over-ride all other settings 2)User-agent keymappings over-ride author declared bindings 3)Author declared bindings We need to ensure that this becomes "codified" into the spec/recommendation: that it moves from "unofficial" to "official". This also, however, requires the software tools to deliver to spec. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't... But at least *maybe* the users who would be genuinely adversely affected by this may find some relief. ***Therefore, if XHTML2 must contained this flawed functionality, then clear conflict resolution MUST be part of the specification/recommendation.*** BACKING UP A BIT: The Draft Authors have stated: "...Author-defined key bindings are a requirement of many members of our user community...". Can the Authors show us one direct communication with the Authors stating this specific need? I have searched high and low, I cannot see it. Adaptive technology clearly do not need it - they have long since developed their own binding requirements and mechanisms that completely sidestep author declared bindings - except of course when there is a conflict. So who, pray tell, are these members of the user community? I simply do not understand why the XHTML draft authors continue to force a BEHAVIOR unto the semantic logic layer - this type of functionality should be reserved for the scripting layer. I cannot find one other instance where this is deemed "reasonable": where an element has, as an available attribute, an author declared behavior within XHTML2. It flies in the face of reason and the declared goal of truly separating semantics from behavior and style. The justification is not good enough ladies and gentlemen. I do not and cannot see *WHY* content authors continue to require the ability to apply specific key-bindings, especially at the semantic level. The emergence of ACCESS and @role will allow authors to declare intent (which is good!), leave the rest to the user agents. The reason given: "...A good example is a mobile application where links need to be mapped to numeric keys..." sidesteps entirely the issue of numeric keybindings previously assigned in non-mobile applications (see: http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38 for existing reasons why numeric keybindings may cause issues). If this type of functionality were moved to the style or scripting layer however, it would be a non-issue. That these layers currently cannot support this type of functionality (due to DOM issues?) is not a very good reason - breaking XHTML2 because Styles and Scripting is broken is dumb. So, Draft Authors, what gives? Will XHTML2 emerge pure, or continue as a hybrid mongrel mixing semantics with behaviors? And if the answer is "B - Mongrel", then please, I repeat again, clear conflict resolution MUST be part of the specification. JF -- John Foliot foliot@wats.ca Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 02:53:22 UTC