WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Mar 17, 2016 7:21AM

Birkir beat me to it and in fact took the words out of my mouth!
It is a fail under all the 3 SCs he listed.
Thanks,
Sailesh




On 3/16/16, Jonathan Avila < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> Adding tabindex=0 makes it a User Interface Component so 4.1.2 now applies
>> to these traditionally non-widget components
>
> This brings up a question I have always wondered -- what role can you apply
> to text? None? Presentation? There are some rare situations where you may
> want to place text in the focus order and if you do -- what role would you
> be required to use in order for it to meet SC 4.1.2?
>
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of James Nurthen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 7:57 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static
> elements.
>
> I agree with 4.1.2
> Adding tabindex=0 makes it a User Interface Component so 4.1.2 now applies
> to these traditionally non-widget components
>
> As such they need to have an accessible name and the "correct" role exposed
> to the Accessibility APIs. They now take focus so the non-widget roles they
> have are not valid for these now interactive components.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> 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
>> > >> > >> archives at
>> > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> > >> > >> > >> > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> > >> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >