#88558 - labels being focusable

[Tobias Anton]

On Dienstag, 19. Oktober 2004 13:03, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > I admit that there's a considerable number of
> > real-world cases in which the new label support is confusing and i also
> > recognize that the behaviour could (and maybe should) be changed. But we
> > should discuss this thoroughly before rushing in another usability change
> > that already has happened. In the discussion, we have to respect the
> > issues of impaired users as well which is the reason why we should keep
> > the code consistent across input methods.
>
>  Very well.

With "across input methods" I don't mean "across widget-libraries, browser 
brands and releases".

> > Imagine for example the case when the label is assigned an
> > onactivate-handler on which some action depends. If you can explain how a
> > keyboard-only user is supposed to trigger that action, I'll be the first
> > one to help implementing a usability improvement for those users that are
> > unable to accomodate to a slight change in khtml's tabbing behaviour.
>
>  Oh, it's simple. Labels are not supposed to be activated (meaning _really_
> activated). They don't work that way in Qt. They don't work that way in
> other browsers. They don't work that way anywhere. Users don't expect
> labels to be focusable, let alone activateable. The only things labels are
> good for are simply being there, showing some text, and moving focus to
> their real UI element after they're "activated".

In which spec did you read that?

>  Since the label's element is usually right after it, and should be
> focusable if it makes sense, there's no point in labels being focusable.

"Usually" is different to "generally", however. Let's try to think of a 
general solution.

> The potentional improvement for impaired users is so small compared to the
> annoyance caused to other users. 
That's your opinion. I think differently. Mainly because I consider the 
annoyance for mouse-clickers less grave than you do.

> And so far you have provided only two
> made-up examples, 
I just enumerated one counterexample for each example provided by you and 
"Datschge". We can continue with this as long as you like...

> which I don't think can stand against the reasons for reverting.
Whatever we decide on that, reverting the patch cannot be the solution. Please 
read the spec and fix it the right way instead of wasting time with long, 
redundant and destructive arguments.
But be aware that the spec is not very precise on the focusability of labels. 
If there are doubts about how to read the spec, we can discuss it here. But 
please stop explaining the situation to me - it's understood.

Cheers
-- Tobias