RE: use of access keys (was: Next and Previous Accesskey)

for

From: Karl Groves
Date: Oct 7, 2003 6:46AM

I think, as often happens, this discussion has degenerated into a discussion of accessibility for the blind.
Let's remember that users can have a variety of special needs, severities of those needs, and methods to overcome them.
The blind aren't the only people who can benefit from accesskeys. The problem, as I see it, is not only the reserved keys of a variety of possible user-agents but also OS as well.
Has anyone ever assembled a comprehensive list of reserved keys? Such a list would probably be invaluable in making a decision about what keys to use.

Karl L. Groves, Certified Master CIW Designer
E-Commerce Manager
NASA Federal Credit Union
500 Prince Georges Blvd.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774

301-249-1800 ext.497
Fax: 301-390-4531

Opinions expressed in this e-mail represent only myself and are not in any way to be taken as the words or opinions of my employer.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eoin Campbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:21 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: RE: use of access keys (was: Next and Previous Accesskey)
>
>
> Thanks for all the great links people mentioned.
> I was surprised at the broad agreement on 1 for Home and 0
> for Access keys,
> which is also what we decided.
>
> John Foliot questioned the use of accesskeys at all,
> which surprised me, at least. The two problems he mentioned are:
> 1. Some screen-reader applications use numeric accesskeys for
> other purposes.
>
> Does anyone know what happens in this situation?
> My understanding was that the screen-reader function would
> take priority,
> and the access keys simply wouldn't work. If this is
> correct, then it doesn't
> seem like a valid argument against ever using them.
>
> 2. No-one will remember the access key assignments
>
> Most people will never use them, but again it seems a poor
> argument for
> not including some access keys. If it costs nothing to
> have them defined
> in the page template, and only a half-dozen people benefit
> greatly, it still
> seems worthwhile to define some generic access keys.
>
> It would not be worthwhile to individually design access
> key sets for
> individual pages, or even whole sites.
>
> The site http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/access_keys/default.htm
> defines numeric access keys for generic pages (Home, Whats
> New, Site Map, etc.)
> and this seems useful to me.
> It also defines alphabetic access keys for different parts of
> the site,
> and this seems less useful, except for people who might be
> constant heavy readers
> of the site.
>
>
> At 20:01 06/10/2003 -0600, John Foliot wrote:
> >> We decided to use numbers rather than letters, to minimize
> conflicts with
> >> browsers and screen-readers, and avoid language dependencies.
> >
> >Ouch!!!!
> >
> >Are you aware that these "Accesskeys" currently conflict
> with "reserved"
> >keystroke combinations in at least two adaptive technology
> programs? For
> >example, in IBM's HomePage Reader Alt + 1 starts "Heading
> reading mode"
> >(reading only the headings on a page) whereas the entire
> range of numbers
> >(Alt+1 through Alt+0) are "Reserved for User-defined
> windows" in GW Micro's
> >WindowEyes. Remember as well, that with a program such as
> WindowEyes these
> >keystrokes are available for more than just web surfing;
> they interact with
> >any and all programs on the installed computer, allowing
> visually impaired
> >users to operate word processors, spread sheet applications,
> etc. Given
> >that fact, the program will over-ride any Accesskey you may
> have specified
> >in your (x)HTML... rendering the operation non-functional -
> in other words
> >"broken".
> >
> >One other thought to consider is how often do you anticipate repeat
> >visitors, especially those who will bother enough to learn
> "your" standard
> >implementation of Accesskeys? For while it may be "standard" on your
> >site(s), the use of Accesskeys is non-standard across the
> entire web. Will
> >visitors truly stop to learn (i.e. commit to memory) your
> Accesskeys on your
> >site? To me it's a big stretch... (although I have not seen
> your site nor
> >know anything about your user base).
>
> --
> Eoin Campbell, Technical Director, XML Workshop Ltd,
> 10 Greenmount Industrial Estate, Harolds Cross, Dublin 12, IRELAND.
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Phone: +353 1 4547811; Fax: +353 1 4496299
> Web: http://www.xmlw.ie
> YAWC Online: http://www.yawconline.com/
> YAWC Pro: http://www.yawcpro.com/
>
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University