WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Access and role

for

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Aug 12, 2005 11:12AM

Glenda Watson Hyatt wrote:
> Thanks John,
>
> I appreciate your detailed explanation. It'll take a bit to digest
> this.
>
> To really simplify this, is the bottom line: the web developer will
> identify various access points and the visitor can specify how to get
> there [ie by defining their own keyboard shortcuts]?
>
> Cheers,
> Glenda
>
> Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
> Soaring Eagle Communications
> Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
> www.webaccessibility.biz
>

Essentially yes, although user agents can also (and probably will) have
pre-mapped keybindings for the common (standard?) roles. For example,
Opera, which is already a very keyboard-user friendly browser may ship
"pre-wired" for the collection of these common roles. Adaptive
technologies may also come pre-configured for the same common roles, so
that in JAWS for example, ALT+Q (for query) might be pre-mapped to the
role of "search". The advantage here of course is that on "every" site
that has a defined role="search" (or even id="search") then the
keybinding works - every time! I personally envision this type of AT
functionality first, followed closely by Opera and possibly Firefox
implementing - with I suspect the ability for end users to define their
own custom bindings as a strong part of those implementations. (Chaals
might make a liar of me and see Opera be first off the block...)

Where it might get tricky is in the custom role declarations - then,
because they will essentially be "new" roles to the end user, a means of
auto-discovery will need to exist, along with the ability to create
bindings on the fly. For example, you just visited the
www.wackywidget.com website, which has created a custom <access> of
"glossary". To do so, the author must create an RDF reference which
"defines" what "glossary" means. But for the end user, how will they
know that there is the possibility to create a binding to "glossary"?
This will probably be the job of the user agent - but the actual "HOW"
is left open. One method might be for sites to set cookies to store
these custom bindings, with a null value for the action generating an
alert of some sort. Vague and loosey goosey right now...

What we, the accessibility community need to be discussing is the list
of common roles (I listed them in the first response, and they are
listed in the draft as well). Are these enough? Are there any missing?
Which is better, "navigation" or "toc" (table of contents)? Or should
we have both as they in fact may be separate ideas/items? I'm not a big
fan of "contentinfo", as for the most part this is essentially "footer"
info... So why not call it that? What about the role(s) of "policy",
"accessibility", "alternative"? I can envision all of these having a
place in the developers/authors toolbox. Are there any others which
should be part of the common collection? [invitation to discuss]

It makes sense really, as once again we are separating the "logic" or
semantic structure from the behavior and presentation. Authors declare
specific roles, but leave the method of quickly accessing (or navigating
to) the role to the end user and their tool(s) of choice.

See, I always supported the idea, just not the existing
implementation...

Cheers!

JF
--
John Foliot <EMAIL REMOVED>
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053