Accesskeys

[redux]

sorry to resurrect an older thread, but i've just seen this from the WAI WCAG IG mailing list which i found rather...disturbing. in reply to someone mentioning the UK Govt. standard access keys

-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd G. Rasmussen [mailto:lras@loc.gov]
Sent: 15 April 2003 15:41
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Limited Number of possible accesskey values



They must not have tested with Window-Eyes. While in MSAA mode, alt-S
reads the status line, and alt-0 through alt-9 read part or all of the
current window. This may improve in the next release;

under the current release, 4.2.1.1, the user could go into the Window-Eyes
control panel and undefine hotkeys for windows 0 through 9 and free up some
of those AccessKeys. But alt-S is not user-configurable at present.

so...back to square 1 ?

[Daz]

How many people use Window-Eyes and would be in MSAA mode (whatever that is)? It sounds like the usual problem, no matter what you do there will always be the odd person that will break your design.

[redux]

not sure about an exact percentage of WE usage...but it is one of the big, known screenreaders.

MSAA = Microsoft Active Accessibility http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...actvaccess.asp

off topic, but this bit of blurb on the WE homepage made me giggle

the ability to read more screens than our nearest competitor

sound a bit like: "now 30% more screens than other leading brands...with added secret ingredient X"

[Daz]

What else can I say but "bloody Microsoft!"?

[redux]

ah...not this time. MSAA is only the "hook" into the operating system that programs can exploit. it's more a case of "bloody accesskeys" in general, as it's looking less and less likely that you'll ever be able to get a large set of keys that does work on every browser, OS, language setting, screenreader, etc...

[vgarcia]

...quote from microsoft about "nearest competitor"...

I notice that the more public-facing a company is, the less technical specs will be doled out and the more "You can do this so easily now!" AOL-type speak is displayed. When companies need to sell/promote a product for mass use, they'll try to dumb it down as much as possible to keep people from thinking it's complicated to use. When it's a niche audience (i.e. developers), the specs are there in full glory.

[redux]

just to clarify: the quote was from the Windows-Eyes website, not microsoft http://www.gwmicro.com/windoweyes/windoweyes.htm

[Daz]

I'm thinking is our problem now to use accesskeys or not? If you choose to use them the only way the user can disable them is to leave your site. It's hardly an acceptable alternative.

[redux]

what do you mean "a user can disable them" ? to clarify, if there's a conflict between access keys on a site and some piece of software (e.g. Windows-Eyes) installed, the software will take precedence. this only means that they won't be able to take advantage of the accesskeys. nevertheless, non-Windows-Eyes users will still benefit from them.
so, definitely leave them in, as the majority of users should still be able to use them.

[Daz]

I was thinking out aloud, thinking if you were on a website and went to use an accesskey it'd perform an action on one of your programs or vice versa, which obviously you wouldn't want.

[Inspire]

Access keys were not something I have ever though about to be honest, from an accessibility point of view though, surely they can only be a good thing? I am doing a dissertation on the accessibility of web-sites. I posted earlier, a topic but not many people have viewed it, maybe I should have chosen a better title! Anyway, I am asking people if they can spare a couple of minutes to fill out a survey, the data collected will be used in my dissertation.

My post is at: http://www.sitepointforums.com/showt...hreadid=104947. Please have a look.

If you can't be bothered, then please go straight to the survey: http://www.farstate.com/survey. (The survey has nothing to do with Farstate).

Thank-you in anticipation.