I've discovered last week that in read-only documents pressing "enter" on a table of content link jump the cursor to the target.
It could be really useful for keyboard-only user to able to do that to in normal document if the if the table of contents is "protected against manual changes"
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open a document with a table of contents
2. Move your cursor on a link inside the table of contents
3. Pressing the return key
The same behavior has it is when you open the document in read-only mode.
User Profile Reset: No
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
So with 'Select Text' enabled in the context menu when in read-only mode, the cursor does appear and pressing enter on a ToC entry will jump to its location, just like clicking the entry with a mouse does, which in edit mode requires ctrl+click.
Not sure that pressing enter alone in edit mode should work like that but yes a combination shortcut key using enter, would be a useful thing to have.
(In reply to Yousuf Philips (jay) from comment #1)
> Not sure that pressing enter alone in edit mode should work like that but
> yes a combination shortcut key using enter, would be a useful thing to have.
For me it's not a problem to affect the enter key to activate an item in the Table of Contents because for the moment enter key doesn't nothing on this context.
Jump to the heading on just enter sounds okay to me. We use ctrl+click so ctrl+enter make sense as well. Would prefer the simpler variant as this change aims to improve a11y.
(In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #3)
> Jump to the heading on just enter sounds okay to me. We use ctrl+click so
> ctrl+enter make sense as well. Would prefer the simpler variant as this
> change aims to improve a11y.
I'm OK for ctrl+enter, it is convenient with the mouse behavior.
I am changing the "depends-on" relationship to blocks for the two bugs.
Is the relationship not supposed to be this way around?
(In reply to Terrence Enger from comment #5)
> I am changing the "depends-on" relationship to blocks for the two bugs.
> alexarnaud, phillipz85,
> Is the relationship not supposed to be this way around?
You're correct. It's my mistake.