On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:01:42 +1100, Olli Pettay olli.pet...@helsinki.fi
wrote:
On 11/27/2008 06:52 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Perhaps a *good* rationale could be, if you can't see the control,
There are other modalities than just visual.
Sure. But users generally expect the page
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
On 11/27/2008 06:52 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Perhaps a *good* rationale could be, if you can't see the control,
There are other modalities than just visual.
Indeed, and the display property applies to every and each the very same
way. From
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
On 11/26/2008 02:34 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
A
better way to do what you aim would consist of setting a listener for
key events on a displayable element and choosing a different operation
basing on the pressed key(s);
This is not content author friendly way
On 11/26/2008 05:35 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
anyway I think key events handling may
be improved and become easier to adopt by adding to a somewhat interface
a few constants representing the modifiers combination used by the
browser to activate access keys, so those modifiers could be
Hi all,
currently it isn't specified anywhere (AFAIK) what should happen
if the element which has an accesskey attribute is hidden using
display:none.
HTML4 says the following:
Pressing an access key assigned to an element gives focus to the element. The action that occurs when an element
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
Hi all,
currently it isn't specified anywhere (AFAIK) what should happen
if the element which has an accesskey attribute is hidden using
display:none.
HTML4 says the following:
Pressing an access key assigned to an element gives focus to the
element. The action that
On 11/25/2008 11:17 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Maybe, the standard behaviour (for both 'display:none' and
'visibility:hidden') could be just focusing (and changing visibility)
after pressing the access key (so the user notices what's happening
before activating any 'control'), then
Olli Pettay wrote:
I think allowing hidden elements to be activated is useful for web apps,
especially because there isn't any API to add listeners for accesskey
activation.
Hmm …
Couldn't you style such elements visible with :focus and :active?
Does popular assistive technology report
On 11/26/2008 12:39 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Olli Pettay wrote:
Couldn't you style such elements visible with :focus and :active?
What you mean? How do you focus a display:none element?
Good point. You can't. Isn't that a problem in practice? i.e. When do
you want a control to have
Olli Pettay ha scritto:
On 11/25/2008 11:17 PM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote:
Maybe, the standard behaviour (for both 'display:none' and
'visibility:hidden') could be just focusing (and changing visibility)
after pressing the access key (so the user notices what's happening
before
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:31:04 +0100, Mikko Rantalainen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-25 23:41 -0600:
Long story short, accesskeys were an idea that worked better on paper
than
they did in practice.
Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-27 23:02 +:
[...]
The specification could include an explicit statement of the form UAs
must ignore the accesskey= attribute, but any such statement would be
in the yet-to-be-written Rendering section.
That statement would conflict with
Charles McCathieNevile [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-28 18:39 +1100:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:02:26 +1100, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[...]
Since most pages that contain links don't also use accesskey=, handset
vendors should find a way to allow easy navigation of links
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-25 23:41 -0600:
Long story short, accesskeys were an idea that worked better on paper than
they did in practice. They inevitably interfered with normal browser
operation as well as other
Dnia 25-01-2008, Pt o godzinie 23:06 -0500, Jean-Nicolas Boulay
Desjardins pisze:
In the present standard you are alowd to use the same accesskey in to
different links... For example:
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
But what would
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:31:46 +1100, Krzysztof Żelechowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia 25-01-2008, Pt o godzinie 23:06 -0500, Jean-Nicolas Boulay
Desjardins pisze:
...
But what would happend if this was to happend:
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
a href=alex.html accesskey=bAlex
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-25 23:41 -0600:
Long story short, accesskeys were an idea that worked better on paper than
they did in practice. They inevitably interfered with normal browser
operation as well as other accessibility features in such a way
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:02:26 +1100, Matthew Paul Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-25 23:41 -0600:
...
Another long story short: accesskey mark is already in use in a
significant amount of existing content, so leaving it
Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2008-01-25 23:41 -0600:
Long story short, accesskeys were an idea that worked better on paper than
they did in practice. They inevitably interfered with normal browser
operation as well as other accessibility features in such a way as to *
reduce* the
In the present standard you are alowd to use the same accesskey in to
different links... For example:
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
But what would happend if this was to happend:
a href=bob.html accesskey=bBob web page/a
a href=alex.html
Why are there removing accesskey?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5-diff/#absent-attributes
I though it was recommended to be used by WAI...
What are we should we use? Because its not said what accesskey is replace
with...
Long story short, accesskeys were an idea that worked better on paper than
they did in practice. They inevitably interfered with normal browser
operation as well as other accessibility features in such a way as to *
reduce* the accessibility of many web pages.
The intended replacement is the
22 matches
Mail list logo
