Thread Subject: Re: 3-SS Visual Indication of Keyboard Shortcuts

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mon, Mar 24 2008 2:05 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Judy Brewer: "3-SS Visual Indication of Keyboard Shortcuts"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I have added this as Version 2 on the Open Provisions page.

W

At 01:42 PM 3/24/2008, Judy Brewer wrote:
>Proposing a clean-up to the language on 3-SS Visual Indication of
>Keyboard Shortcuts at
>http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:OpenProvisions_March_12#3-SS_-_Visual_Indication_of_Keyboard_Shortcuts
>which currently reads:
>
> "All keyboard commands associated directly with user interface controls
> must be visible within the visual user interface in at least one
> mode, and
> available programmatically to AT on products that support AT
>interoperability."
>
>The concept in the second clause has already been taken up by 3.U.1.g
>(keyboard shortcuts & implicit designators, under programmatic access
>to AT) -- though it did not reach consensus, and thus I believe that
>it should be removed from this provision. So the simplified 3-SS would read:
>
> "All keyboard commands associated directly with user interface controls
> must be visible within the visual user interface in at least one mode."
>
>The two notes still appear important, and I recommend retaining these.
>
> "Note 1: This includes commands such as those used to active a
>menu item or button (e.g. the "S" of a "Save File" menu item), but
>does not include commands that are system-wide or common conventions
>for using an item (e.g. a command to switch windows such as ALT-TAB,
>or a command to advance the caret in text such as Ctrl-Arrow)."
>
> "Note 2: User-configurable keyboard commands may be considered
>not directly tied to interface elements. However, when possible such
>user-configurable keyboard bindings should be visually presented as
>configured."
>
>Through hallway conversations over the past two weeks I believe that
>there was more agreement on the need for this provision, but perhaps
>not yet sufficient agreement on the feasibility of a particular
>approach, and some remaining concerns about harmonization. It is
>likely that W3C/WAI's User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working
>Group (UAWG) will take up this issue in its work on UAAG 2.0, and
>work with developers to refine an understanding of the user need and
>a feasible approach. If it's not possible to reach consensus on this
>language, I would like to at least have this cleaned-up version
>available as a reference point for minority opinions.
>
>Regards,
>
>- Judy
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Judy Brewer: "3-SS Visual Indication of Keyboard Shortcuts"