Gabriel Wicke wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 13:53 -0700, Brion Vibber
wrote:
This is why the conflicting defaults must be
changed; they are very
damaging to usability. If you don't do it, I will.
Can you propose new default assignments? Im not objecting to avoiding
keys like a (select all on moz linux), but we should try to find a more
meaningful choice than '2' or similar.
I already provided a list of keys to avoid. Why don't you see what's
left and make some recommendations from that that you'd like?
Which users do you have in mind here? I imagine there
are very few
disabled users using lynx for their daily browsing needs. Imo
accessibility is not about textbooks, it's about making good decisions
with the disabled, but also with the average user in mind. That's the
gist of the WCAG and section 508 as far as i understand them.
Exactly what I've been saying! That's why I don't understand why you
keep talking about blind people and screenreaders and why I don't
understand why you refuse to remove the usability-destroying shortcuts
that are in there now.
Do you then
agree that the access keys should work even if JavaScript is
disabled or unavailable?
The most important ones do (p, s). We could re-add some other important
ones, but i don't agree that this is a high priority. The problem with
having both would be maintenance- the keys would need to be
updated/changed in two places- Monobook.js and acceskey-xy.
That shouldn't be necessary. Why won't the master data carry through?
The ~80
saved calls to wfMsg per page view
80 calls to wfMsg sound very inefficient. Why not use one?
and the reduced page source size are
also important for accessibility- a slow/timing out wikipedia is not
accessible at all.
Reduced page source size? 'accesskey="x" ' is 14 bytes including space.
And, we gzip the output, so that'll reduce further.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)