Thread Subject: Re: Web Gaps - keyboard operation
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:11 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Web Gaps - keyboard operation"
- Previous message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Web Gaps - keyboard operation"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Hmmmm. It does sound a little arcane. However it is in fact the real
problem. We can create keyboard access except when the input required is
analog in nature (not a discreet item) and has a time dependent aspect to it
(so you can't just type in numbers to specify an analog number).
Finger painting is one example. Flying a helicopter in real time is
CAD is not.
The problem with the existing text is that the problem isn't whether you can
describe the task or output in text. It is whether the action actually
requires input that cannot be done from a keyboard. I have had people
think we were talking about voice control or natural language control by
typing into the keyboard. That was really confusing to them. I also have
people saying that with enough words you can describe anything. And any
limit on words raises the question of why that number of words. So I don't
think the current wording does either.
Maybe we go with the new words and a good description to explain?
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:48 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web Gaps - keyboard operation
> Sorry, but I am not sure "time-dependent analogue input"
> really gets at the issue. Actually, I think it avoids the
> issue by using an intimidating arcane phrase which no
> developer I have ever worked with will understand. And when
> they ask me what it means, I will have to use phrases which
> should have been in the standard in the first place. It
> confuses rather than clarifies.
> I missed the call, but what's wrong with the standard as it
> exists now.