WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Misuse of TabIndex 0

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Nov 4, 2015 9:32AM

Furthermore making elements focusable that don't have the appropriate roles
exposed leads to odd behavious in some screen readers as the interpret the
elements as editable text or they announce all text content as the
accessible name for the element on focus and some other unexpected nasties.
This is not the AT's fault as the addition of tabindex=0 modifies the
representation of an element in the accessibility tree and how its
accessible name is generated.


--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 4 November 2015 at 14:59, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC) <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> I am evaluating a large web based application that uses tabindex="0" to
> place all of the explanatory text, instructions, FAQ's, questions for
> groups of radio buttons and checkboxes, etc. into the tab ring.
>
> I am of the opinion that this violates the intent if not the letter of
> guideline 2.4.3 focus order. "If a Web page can be navigated sequentially
> and the navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable
> components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability"
>
> My interpretation is that by placing inactive/static content within the
> tab ring operability is severely adversely impacted for people who depend
> upon tab navigation.
>
> Operability is impacted in the following ways:
>
> 1. Additional tab stops make it harder to get to interactive controls
> like links and form fields. This is particularly onerous for people who use
> keyboard navigation due to a physical disability that limits dexterity in
> their hands.
>
> 2. The additional tab stops may create confusion since the user will
> expect to tab to controls, form fields and links and not static text.
>
> 3. The additional tab stops may create further confusion since some
> users may assume that since the text is focusable that it will be
> actionable (This may also violate 4.1.2).
>
> Do you agree or disagree with my interpretation and why? Is there another
> guideline at level A or AA that may apply here? Note: 2.4.7 Focus Visible
> is being met.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
> > > > >