WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Focus on adding/removing items

for

From: Robert Fentress
Date: Mar 25, 2015 3:19PM

Excellent, Cliff. I agree that 2.4.3 provides a good "official"
justification. Thanks for pointing that out.
On Mar 25, 2015 4:22 PM, "Cliff Tyllick" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Rob, by approaching it from the standpoint of performance objectives—a
> concept mentioned in Section 508, by the way—you could attack that
> usability issue head-on.
>
> In other words, the standard becomes "accessible to and usable by" people
> with disabilities.
>
> "It's unusable to everyone else, too," isn't safe harbor, especially for
> an educational institution. What matters is to make the interface usable
> for people with disabilities.
>
> If they want to leave it unusable for everyone else, I guess that option
> is available. But it must be usable by people with disabilities, regardless
> of how many checkpoints it passes.
>
> I've probably said all that before. If you absolutely must point to a
> failed SC, I would choose SC 2.4.3, Focus Order, which finishes with,
> "focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and
> operability." (Level A)
>
> I would argue that when the focus is lost you also lose operability. They
> agree that this is a usability problem, so surely they must recognize that
> operability has been disrupted. For it to pass 2.4.3, that can't happen.
>
>
>
> Cliff Tyllick
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its
> fault.
>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Robert Fentress < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> >>
> > > >