WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Megginson, Jason
Date: Mar 17, 2016 8:17AM

> Keyboard users can be of two types. 'Keyboard only' and 'screen reader + keyboard' users.

I make the argument for a third; low vision users of screen magnification. I agree that we should not force users to traverse through all the elements of the page unless those areas or elements need some user interaction. But I would also want to give the option to navigate or browse dynamic content (tooltips, dynamic regions etc) while retaining programmatic focus on the controlling element.

I am waiting for the day that screen magnification software utilize aria-controls (for example) where programmatic focus can be retained on a controlling element but allow the magnified screen to pan to the referenced dynamic region per the user's discretion. The trick, however, is informing sighted or low vision keyboard users that the controlling element references dynamic content in a non-obtrusive manner.

Jason Megginson Director, Accessibility Compliance Office (ACO)

The College Board
T 571.392.2195 | M 703.244.7755
<EMAIL REMOVED>


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Snahendu Bhattacharya
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:09 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements.

There are two different aspect. Accessibility and Usability.

By following the guidelines we need to ensure we have better Accessibility rather ease of access. We should not try to make things complex.

Question is why should I make static element keyboard focusable?

Keyboard users can be of two types. 'Keyboard only' and 'screen reader + keyboard' users.

In either cases user has option to read through the entire page, either using 'eyes' or by using 'assistive technology'.

We should not force our user to traverse through all the elements of the page unless those areas or elements need some user interaction. That increases number of keystrokes and ends in a very poor user experience.

One of the major purpose of Accessibility is 'P O U R', where O is operability. To implement this, we should not make it unusable.

I think this can be the argument to focus.
On Mar 17, 2016 9:55 AM, "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> This is definitely an area that I'd like to see clarified in the future.
> I would argue that text _is_ a user interface component, and if you have:
>
> <p tabindex=0>Some text</p>
>
> You have set the name and role by using a paragraph and by the
> paragraph having the text content. The browser may report the element
> as clickable (the state), so some of these concerns may actually be
> addressed. Of course there are accessibility support issues, but we
> will put that aside for now.
>
> The questions that I have about this type of interaction (apart from
> "is this really necessary?") are:
> Will a screen reader user know that this is a link or provides some
> other interaction and if so, know how to activate it and what it is
> for? (perhaps
> 2.4.4 if the effect is that a link is created, or 1.1.1 to make sure
> that the control has a name that describes the input, 4.1.2 just
> requires a name
> - 1.1.1 requires that it describes the purpose)
>
> Will a sighted keyboard user be able to know that this control is
> interactive and how to use it? (SC 2.4.7 for focus visibility. The
> how to use it is likely a question that will affect all users)
>
> So I would say that 1.1.1 and 2.4.7 are SC that I'd look at for this.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3/16/16, 20:30, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Jonathan Avila" <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of
> <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
> >> > >>
> >> >> >archives
> at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >> >> >> >archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >