timeless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2007-11-07 22:38 +0200: > Personally, I hate accesskey. I understand that it was invented > because someone felt it would solve a problem, however I believe it > creates many more problems than it solves.
I won't argue with any of that. But I will point out that accesskey markup is already widely used in a large number of sites. So if we want to the spec to describe how a conformant UA is expected to handle that existing content, then we need it spec'ed -- regardless of whatever new markup we might be able to come up with the replace/improve on accesskey. [...] > This isn't to say that I'm against accessibility, I just don't think > this feature makes sites more accessible. If each site picks different > bindings (and they do/will), it's worse than the web browser > automatically and consistently assigning bindings the user likes. I don't personally have much insight into how widely/appropriately used accesskey is for desktop accessibility use cases. What I do know is that it's very commonly used in sites that take into consideration the browsing context of access from a mobile device that has only a keypad and 5-way (or directional pad or whatever you want to call it) instead of a real keyboard and pointing device. For that context, accesskey definitely does make sites more usable and accessible. --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/ http://sideshowbarker.net/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
