> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Matt Fellows > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:33 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2 implementation site > > > I recall reading somewhere that 'accesskey' is often considered more > > hindrance than benefit because there are no standardised keys for > > specific functions and it inevitably ends up conflicting with regular > > browser shortcuts that keyboard users or screenreader users are > > likely to wish to utilise. > > I would have to generally agree with that. What makes matters worse is > the fact that there is no really good/standard behaviour that browser > vendors actually follow in implementing them. I was referring to point > 9.5 in http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-device-independence > when I made the comment, and was interested Mike's perspective for not > using them in this circumstance. I guess since there are only three > links, accesskeys become trivial as they probably won't save any time > anyway. I still think there is a case for accesskey's in many > circumstances however unpopular they are, lets not forget about mobile > access etc.
User defined Access Keys may be a solution: http://tjkdesign.com/articles/user_defined_accesskeys.asp -- Regards, Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
