<017b01c6916b$cb2e86b0$8c84ef04@Bob>
Current votes: None.
hi, I'm the one who was quoted in the original post on this subject. I know that there are some problems with accesskeys clashing with other = command keys, but I truly think it'd be a shame to drop them just = because of this clash, or just because they aren't used much. It really = does make things much easier for navigating around a web page when = accesskeys are implemented. Thanks, Brandon ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> To: "whatwg List" <whatwg@whatwg.org> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [whatwg] On accessibility Le 14 juin 2006 =E0 21:09, Lachlan Hunt a =E9crit : > If implementations can be modified so that accesskeys do not =20 > interfere with existing shortcut keys, then that's great. Perhaps =20 > they could offer a kind of web-apps mode where all Alt+[key] =20 > combinations are safe to be used by the web page, and then another =20 > mode where they retain their normal browser functions. But until =20 > something like that happens and proves successful, accesskeys =20 > should not be retained. I'd like to point out that accesskeys are working very well on the =20 Mac. Application commands are issued using the Command key and most =20 browsers bind accesskeys to the minimally-used Control key. =20 Accesskeys do not conflict with other system and application =20 shortcuts unless the user defines his own conflicting shortcuts in =20 the system preferences. It would be sad to see accesskeys disappear just because they are =20 hard to implement elsewhere. But I acknowledge most other computers =20 don't have a "spare" key which can be used for that. Michel Fortin michel.fortin@michelf.com http://www.michelf.com/