WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements.

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mar 16, 2016 4:02PM

Lucy!
I like your style!
If we are still talking WCAG I have 3 suggestions:
First, 2.4.7 .. when you tab through all of these, do you always see
where the focus is? I am highly suspicious that a focus indicator has
not been created around all the static elements with tabindex="0",
therefore 2.4.7 fails.
If that is true, I think the case for 2.4.3 is much strengthened.
User expects to be tabbing from one actionable element to the next.
If he tabs, loses sight of where he is, tries to activate the element,
and nothing happens, that would be hard to interpret as a logical
focus order.
The third is 4.1.2, name, role, value.
You expect that an element that receives focus is an actionable element.
Actionable elements have to have a role. divs and spans do not have a
role, and that matters when you can tab to them.

I hope that none of the creative WCAG interpretation thinking is needed.
This must be due to wanting to accommodate for accessibility without
fully understanding how.
I once audited a webpage which had access key attributes for every
link and piece of text on the page (they stopped because they ran out
of keys).





On 3/16/16, Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC)
< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> "Any accessibility effort that is so reliant upon WCAG that it neglects to
> address end user issues that are not defined as WCAG failures will rarely
> result in good accessibility."
>
> I totally agree but am going for the stretch argument anyway. Otherwise it
> probably will not be fixed.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of Jared Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3:19 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static
> elements.
>
>> Are there specific WCAG AA guidelines that I can cite for this problem?
>
> I don't think so. 2.1.1 only requires that functionality be operable via a
> keyboard - which it is. It doesn't indicate anything about efficiency,
> having non-actionable elements placed in the keyboard navigation flow, etc.
>
> F44, as Marc suggested, is quite a stretch. It deals with defining a
> navigation order that is not logical. In your situation, the order is
> logical - it's just that there's a lot of useless navigation elements thrown
> into the mix.
>
> Despite what WCAG requires, this is clearly an issue for end users and
> should be fixed.
>
> Any accessibility effort that is so reliant upon WCAG that it neglects to
> address end user issues that are not defined as WCAG failures will rarely
> result in good accessibility.
>
> Jared
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.