Re: [note: two-level nav in WAI-ARIA] [was: Re: reCAPTCHA implementation problems]

Hi Al,

On 17/07/07, Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org> wrote:
> At 1:45 PM -0400 17 07 2007, Chris Blouch wrote:
> >With a few exceptions the accessible widget models seem to follow a
> >pattern where you tab to the widget, use other keys to navigate
> >within the widget (arrows, space etc) and a second tab takes you out
> >of the widget. Is this the generally accepted practice we want to
> >promote? Seems to align well with the GUI pattern of select an
> >object, manipulate it and then release it.
>
> That is the proposed practice that the WAI-ARIA design is predicated on.
>
> That does not necessarily equate to "generally accepted." It's an
> innovation on the Web. I don't yet know if Josh had read my post and
> rejected it, or was simply saying 'amen' to the message I replied to,
> without having considered this alternative.

I can't speak for Josh, but I expect that he interpreted my message
about programmatic access to include a controller (provided by
WAI-ARIA, or any other means of providing a controller for keyboard
access) for keyboard accessibility, as I mentioned programmatic access
in my response. It seemed obvious to me, but maybe I was assuming too
much. As you have pointed out, I didn't explicitly say that, so I can
understand why this is being repeatedly raked up, even though someone
who doesn't think keyboard accessibility is important at all is being
overlooked. I do agree that I should have made it clear that I meant
tab order, rather than keyboard accessible. Please take this message
to assume that by programmatic access I meant including controllers
provide by the author (including those afforded by WAI-ARIA).
Mistakenly, it seemed a bit irrelevant to mention it when the original
poster didn't think that any kind of keyboard accessibility was
important, yet alone those afforded by WAI-ARIA; I now know that to be
a mistake, and I promise not to make it again.

The benefits of reducing items in the tab order are obvious, and I'm
sure that everyone subscribed to this list will appreciate that. I'm
sorry that I overlooked that point from my original response, but it
seemed to me that we were dealing with a scenario where keyboard
accessibility wasn't a priority at all - I apologise for not making
that clearer, but in the meantime, there is at least one person
included in this thread (CC'd back in) that doesn't think any kind of
provision for keyboard accessibility is important, and I mistakenly
have focused on that person. Further responses will be worded so that
it's clear to this list what I mean by keyboard accessibility.

Thanks,

Gez


-- 
_____________________________
Supplement your vitamins
http://juicystudio.com

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 22:14:48 UTC