SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Access Keys - Is there a standard?

    Hi all

    I have a simple nav bar, I'm using random access keys I've assigned that best suits the link, my question is... is this wrong and should I be following some sort of standard? Should I be using numbers?

    a - about
    s - our services
    g - gallery
    b - bookings

    Code HTML4Strict:
    <ul id="navigation">
    			<li><a href="about.html" title="about" accesskey="a"><em>a</em>bout</a></li>
    			<li><a href="services.thml" title="services" accesskey="s"><em>o</em>ur services</a></li>
    			<li><a href="gallery.html" title="gallery" accesskey="g"><em>g</em>allery</a></li>
    			<li><a href="bookings.html" title="bookings" accesskey="b"><em>b</em>ooking form</a></li>
    			</ul>

    Just taken this from wikipedia:

    UK Government recommendation for access keys

    * S - Skip navigation
    * 1 - Home page
    * 2 - What's new
    * 3 - Site map
    * 4 - Search
    * 5 - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    * 6 - Help
    * 7 - Complaints procedure
    * 8 - Terms and conditions
    * 9 - Feedback form
    * 0 - Access key details


    Thanks
    The more you learn.... the more you learn there is more to learn.

  2. #2
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's your answer; generally there is no "official standard" due to conflicts with various software, and Operating Systems key assignments, etc. Although 'Numeric Keys' were considered the most apt or least likely to conflict.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks xhtml, I have checked to see if there was any conflict, everything seems ok on windows, so i gather everything else will be ok on mac etc

    There's your answer
    Meaning the Government recommendation? If I force numbers instead of letters, I'll then lose any extra visuals on the links themselves <em>a</em>.

    So generally speaking, if there's no conflict I'll be ok to use random letters?

    Thanks
    The more you learn.... the more you learn there is more to learn.

  4. #4
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm,
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert
    There's you answer [...]
    My answer was: there is no "official standard".

    Though yes, basically I would suggest if you do use them you stick the ones the UK Government recommend. Personally I'd only use the ones listed in the first post, i.e. '0-9' and 'S' unless you can be over 95%+ certain there is no other conflict.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My answer was: there is no "official standard".
    Yes misunderstood Rob.

    So personal preference really, I'll have to check the other OS's, browsers if not I'll just use the safe option... numbers. Though like I mentioned above, losing extra visuals which is a bit of a drag very useful, unless I also add numbers to the links somehow.

    Thanks again
    The more you learn.... the more you learn there is more to learn.

  6. #6
    Is Still Alive silver trophybronze trophy RetroNetro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,883
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks BPartch, just had a read through them all... everything points to 0-9
    numbers every time... you are safe with numbers
    Seems like to much conflict using letters, I kept opening the media player on windows when I used 'p' and what people have been saying letters are very limited. Like before; bit of a shame really you can't add that extra visual <em>a</em>

    Thanks
    The more you learn.... the more you learn there is more to learn.

  8. #8
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The problem with access key's isn't just down to the web browser being used, confliction's occur when those assigned keys override shortcuts used by software (which you and no-one cept the end user may have access to alter). Meaning that some program a user has installed may override those key preferences and they won't get the desired effect. It's a case of the browser giving functionality it doesn't really have the right to assign (on the basis that it's not sandboxed for the browser alone).

    This is the best article on the subject: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/keyboard/accesskey.php

    Hope it's helpful, I personally don't use accesskeys because their poorly implemented and being deprecated in HTML5 (from what I've read).

  9. #9
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,718
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Cheers Alex, very mixed views on what I've read so far today and seems like everything conflicts with each other. It might be best to keep the access keys to a absolute minimum: s - skip to content(if you don't position your content first that is), 1 - nav bar (then use tabbing), 3 - guidelines etc

    I personally don't use accesskeys because their poorly implemented and being deprecated in HTML5 (from what I've read)
    Yes fair comment, most of the jobs I've been going for accessibility is paramount(meaning companys are still using it) and not sure HTML5 will be standardized any time soon

    if developers choose to use accesskey shortcuts, they must somehow notify users that the accesskey shortcuts are available
    I was going to use:

    Would you bother with this or just keep it in the markup?

    Good read thanks for the link
    The more you learn.... the more you learn there is more to learn.

  10. #10
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I would use that as it implies visual cues (that is as long as you explain their access keys) - perhaps through the use of a popup tool-tip.

  11. #11
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    Hope it's helpful, I personally don't use accesskeys because their poorly implemented and being deprecated in HTML5 (from what I've read).
    The accesskey attribute was absent in earlier drafts of HTML5, but is now present and has been extended and attempted to fix some of the problems of accesskey in HTML4 and current implementations. However, the problems with current implementations remain until they are fixed to implement it per HTML5 (and have better UI than today).

    For one thing, HTML5 allows assigning multiple alternative keys to one element which the browser can choose from based on which keys are available. For another, accesskey is available on all elements in HTML5. You can also detect with script whether and which key was actually bound to an element, so you can print out accurate discoverable in-page UI if you want.
    Simon Pieters

  12. #12
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Orca screen reader has a lot of very weird key combos... partially to avoid conflicts with Gnome shortcuts and partially... who know what reason. But keys on the numerical keypad are part of it if you've chosen Desktop keyboard. I'm not sure you can always assume that someone's application can always override any particular site's accesskeys.

    BTW Sitepoint does use accesskeys (view source) and at least one regular blind user was using them here. Stuff like forums and news sites, as opposed to one-visit sales sites, may benefit more from accesskeys because people are more likely to get a benefit after spending the time to learn them.

  13. #13
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,810
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The current accessibility standards state that accesskeys should NOT be used as they make the page less accessiblte due to conflicts between the accesskeys defined in the page and any defined by the operating system or browser.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  14. #14
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The current accessibility standards state that accesskeys should NOT be used as they make the page less accessiblte due to conflicts between the accesskeys defined in the page and any defined by the operating system or browser.
    But is that still true? IE7 still uses Alt+key (don't know about IE8), so it's vulnerable. Firefox/Win uses Shift+Alt+key now, so it should be safe. Opera has used Shift+Esc key for years and years and has always been safe.

    I just found that Chrome/Win and Safari/Win both use Alt+key, like IE.

    So I suppose you're right.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  15. #15
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The thing is, as confusing and inconsistent as they are... people tend to stick to a single browser anyway (normal people don't jump browsers regularly) and therefore the inconsistency will be less of an issue for them (especially as people with disabilities tend to be more willing and used to having to make compromises to get a good all round experience). As bad as the situation is, all the research I've seen shows that when accesskeys are available, people do make use of them regularly, it's just a shame there's such a "learning curve" in the sense of catering for a whole range of different environments when giving instructions for use.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    But is that still true?
    Yes, it is still true that access keys are to be avoided if at all possible. The reason is that JAWS and other programs that help people with disabilities access the Web have their own access keys. As you have no idea which application any given visitor will be using, there is no way you can avoid using the access keys reserved for their assistive technology.

    So, remember: It isn't just the browser that needs all those access keys — it's also the screen reader (or other assistive technology).

  17. #17
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    So, remember: It isn't just the browser that needs all those access keys — it's also the screen reader (or other assistive technology).
    I understand that, but I was under the impression that modern browsers were now using activation keystrokes that shouldn't conflict with known AT. And one might think that the onus would be on AT vendors not to choose access keys that are likely to conflict with known browsers.

    And isn't it usually the case that software access keys override author-defined access keys in a web page? In that case, all that happens is that the access keys in the page won't work as the author intended. No harm, no foul. But they will work for those whose software doesn't conflict with them. Progessive enhancement, that is.

    BTW, what does Shift+Esc do in JAWS?
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  18. #18
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, modern browsers are supposed to not conflict with AT, but functions you build into your page and program access keys to do might. And if the AT function overrides the intended function you programmed into your Web page, then there is harm — that feature of your Web page is not available to anyone using that AT. In other words, it's inaccessible.

    What does Shift+Esc do in JAWS? I have no idea. I don't need a screen reader. But even if I did, it isn't just JAWS. It's also NVDA, VoiceOver, and others. Each one has its own set of access keys, and you can't tell which one a visitor to your site might use. Each one can conflict with whatever keys you choose for operating your page. And, as everyone realized quite early on in this thread, there simply are no standards for intended action of access keys.

    I recall seeing somewhere a list of all the access key sequences used by current forms of AT. I can't find it now, but the point of that Web page was that pretty much nothing is available. But there is still the issue of how perceptible your key sequences are. By that I mean, How do you let people know what those key sequences will do — without cluttering the interface?

    Thus, the bottom line with WCAG is that you should find some other method for visitors to use to gain access to the features of your page.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    Yes, modern browsers are supposed to not conflict with AT, but functions you build into your page and program access keys to do might.
    Not if browser vendors make sure to use an access key activation mechanism that doesn't conflict with known access keys in AT. Like Opera's Shift+Esc. And not if AT vendors make sure not to use access keys that may conflict with the access key activation mechanism in known browsers.

    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    And if the AT function overrides the intended function you programmed into your Web page, then there is harm — that feature of your Web page is not available to anyone using that AT. In other words, it's inaccessible.
    No, you're not understanding the concept of accessibility properly. Inaccessible means that you cannot access the content, or critical functions. But access keys aren't critical functions; they are just progressive enhancement for those who have something to gain from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    I recall seeing somewhere a list of all the access key sequences used by current forms of AT. I can't find it now, but the point of that Web page was that pretty much nothing is available.
    Some onus is also on the user. There is numerous browsers to choose from – most of them free of charge and available cross-platform – and they employ different access key activation mechanisms: Alt, Shift+Alt, Ctrl, Shift+Esc, ... So the likelihood that you cannot find a single browser that doesn't conflict with your AT should be quite small.

    And even if that happens, the result is nothing worse than your missing out on a few short cuts on a handful of web sites.

    Compared to the accessibility problems caused by abusing markup for presentational purposes, missing text equivalents, improper heading order, poor contrast, reliance on client-side scripting or plug-ins, missing background colour specification on elements with white text on a background image, etc., etc., etc., I'd say this is a minor thing.

    I'm not advocating the use of access keys, but the reason isn't that there may be conflicts in some combinations of UA+AT, but that they are virtually useless anyway. As far as I know, Opera is the only browser that can even show you what access keys are available on a particular web page. And most sites that use access keys don't indicate what they are, except maybe on a separate page somewhere.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  20. #20
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I agree almost entirely Tommy, the only other concern I hold with the concept of access keys was addressed earlier when I mentioned that a side effect of assigning keyboard shortcuts is that there's a very real chance another installed application on the end users PC may hijack or reassign the combination to itself. Because the OS doesn't reserve such key functionality (the UA being separate from the OS) it puts you in an uncomfortable position that even if you have a browser that uses access keys properly and a site declares them, there's still a chance it may not work, or worse, cause another program to take action upon that combination being used.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    No, you're not understanding the concept of accessibility properly.
    Actually, I understand the concept of accessibility quite well. But the fact that a site developer has added an access key doesn't mean that key is a progressive enhancement. I've been in quite a few development discussions in which the proposed access key was intended to achieve an otherwise unachievable function. No, we needed another fix.

    I've also been in discussions in which it was proposed that the content was accessible because, even if you couldn't activate the access key sequence that took you straight to the one field you needed to modify, you could keep pressing the tab key until you traveled through all 50 of the fields on the page. Um, no. "You can still do it" does not necessarily meet the standard of equivalent experience — and equivalent experience is the standard we need to meet to ensure that our content is truly accessible.

    But I do appreciate your clarifying that one must always be aware of the distinction between essential function, which must be available to everyone, and progressive enhancement, which need not be.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    I've been in quite a few development discussions in which the proposed access key was intended to achieve an otherwise unachievable function.
    I can't see how that's possible. The accesskey attribute is only valid for a limited number of element types (mainly links and form controls). All of which are keyboard navigable and have their own built-in behaviour. An access key is merely a convenient way to trigger that behaviour. It cannot achieve a function that is otherwise unachievable. For that you'd need a keyboard event listener and some client-side scripting, but that's not an access key in the sense we're discussing in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    I've also been in discussions in which it was proposed that the content was accessible because, even if you couldn't activate the access key sequence that took you straight to the one field you needed to modify, you could keep pressing the tab key until you traveled through all 50 of the fields on the page. Um, no.
    Um, yes. Accessible doesn't always mean 'easy to access'. It just means 'possible to access'. You're thinking about usability, which is a related, but nevertheless separate topic.

    And, again, the onus is on the user to choose the best UA or AT that fills his or her needs. A person who needs (or, like me, simply prefers) keyboard navigation should choose a browser that offers good keyboard navigation functionality. The only one I'm aware of is the one I'm using: Opera. Its spatial navigation is second to none, and I never have to keep pressing the Tab key 50 times.

    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    "You can still do it" does not necessarily meet the standard of equivalent experience — and equivalent experience is the standard we need to meet to ensure that our content is truly accessible.
    It's not a definition of accessibility that I've encountered before. Don't get me wrong: I agree that it's what we should strive for! But sometimes it's not possible. And accessible, to me, means that I'm able to access the same information and perform the same functions as everyone else. It may be less usable and less aesthetically pleasing, but that's another thing.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  23. #23
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Um, yes. Accessible doesn't always mean 'easy to access'. It just means 'possible to access'. You're thinking about usability, which is a related, but nevertheless separate topic. &hellip It's not a definition of accessibility that I've encountered before.
    Ah, then it's your concept of accessibility that needs updating. I and all the accessibility experts I work with view accessibility as an extension of universal design, which means that the product is usable for all and no less usable for people who have disabilities affecting sight, hearing, mobility, or cognition.

    And you're right if my only option with no mouse or touchpad available is to tab through 50 fields just to be able to modify one of them, the form isn't usable. If it isn't usable, there's no way it can be made accessible.

  24. #24
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    aye4design, I'm not too sure I can entirely agree that Universal Design is an achievable goal, while I (as an accessibility specialist - of sorts) do entirely agree with the same principles as yourself it feels rather foolhardy to proclaim that the methodology put across by universal design is in-fact achievable (where as Tommy's older but studier principle of access now, graceful later is much better in respect to implementable potential). One thing we as accessible designers tend to forget is that accessibility is about ALL potential inhibiting factors whether a disability of human or machine (used by human), as such unless you have a medical degree, are a trained psychologist and have the entire medical vocabulary to take into account any possible disease, condition, affliction, impairment or circumstance which may prevent someone using a website when they feel or wish the need to, it's wrong to justify that such widespread design is even possible. It's physically impossible to account for every kind of disorder that may cause some amount of friction or inhibition and as noble as universal design is as a concept of "something everyone can access and use equally", the laws of nature, science and computing just show us that equality is impossible... of course we can aim for the best and most widespread basis of potential friction (and inhibitors) but it's just a bit too much to design for everyone because in a certain respect... everyone is disabled by something.

    In another thread (I'll digress here as it's important to my post and more useful here) "Checking the numbers" you made the following post...

    Quote Originally Posted by aye4design View Post
    The significance of that is that the relatively small (as in "much less than half the general population") number of people with disabilities are a somewhat larger chunk of the group that engages in online commerce, in the first place, and somewhat more likely to buy from an online merchant, in the second place. But they're also highly likely to ditch a site that isn't accessible in favor of one that is.
    This is a very real misconception (as denoted above), the amount of people with a disability is significantly higher than those without... if you take into account every possible situation where someone may be (in a respect) disabled or unable to browse a website as effectively as another person... whether physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially, psychologically, conditionally or mechanically, it's probably closer to 99&#37; of the world population who fall into that category. We talk about physical disability like it's only a remote amount of people, but just look at the amount of people who have accidents where their limbs may break, sprain or be injured (for a short period of time), very few web designers account or use those as part of the stats even though their just as debilitating as fully fledged limb loss... just on a part time basis. If there's one thing I like to preach about accessibility it's that you, I and everyone else needs to stop thinking of disability as a numbers game of minority reports. EVERYONE on earth could be qualified as having some kind of factor which disables or inhibits their actions... whether it's someone with an incurable disease or just someone trying to visit a website when their drunker than an Irishman. Disability is everywhere and affects everyone, sometimes it's temporary, sometimes it's permanent, but in all cases it's accountable and should be recognised... and thus, true Universal design (IMO) is nothing more than a pipe dream.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I understand universal design to be an approach, not a destination. Fromt hat standpoint, the fact that not every human is able to use our Web page, form, or software does not mean that we've failed to use universal design.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexDawson View Post
    This is a very real misconception (as denoted above), the amount of people with a disability is significantly higher than those without... if you take into account every possible situation where someone may be (in a respect) disabled or unable to browse a website as effectively as another person... whether physically, intellectually, emotionally, socially, psychologically, conditionally or mechanically, it's probably closer to 99% of the world population who fall into that category.
    Yes, the term I'm familiar with for that broader range is "metadisability." In counting populations, I'm using the U.S. legal definition of disability, which paraphrasing heavily here applies only if the impairment significantly impedes the ability to see, hear, move, or process information. And, fortunately, that does apply to fewer than half of us.

    And you're right when we include all those degrees of metadisability in the mix, the steps we take to make our content perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust benefit us all.

    That said, I suspect we're singing different choruses of the same song. I'm glad we're dedicated to helping others make the Web more usable for everyone.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •