E-mail List Archives
Re: excess accesskeysWCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements.
From: Chaals McCathie Nevile
Date: Mar 16, 2016 7:31PM
- Next message: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements."
- Previous message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on staticelements."
- Next message in Thread: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements."
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on staticelements."
- View all messages in this Thread
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:02:24 +0100, Birkir R. Gunnarsson
< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
...
> I once audited a webpage which had access key attributes for every
> link and piece of text on the page (they stopped because they ran out
> of keys).
They weren't trying hard enough. You can put any unicode character in
there. Although some are a bad idea…
More to the point, I know real users, who genuinely want this
functionality. I tend to suggest that they should use a browser extension
to do it, because asking content producers would be a terrible idea. But
it relies on actually having accesskey - if we stick to javascripted
shortcuts, you can pretty much forget about trying to make it work.
cheers
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
<EMAIL REMOVED> - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
- Next message: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements."
- Previous message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on staticelements."
- Next message in Thread: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements."
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on staticelements."
- View all messages in this Thread