WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Jonathan Avila
Date: Mar 17, 2016 8:37AM

> Will a screen reader user know that this is a link or provides some other interaction

In regards to interactive content, F59: Failure of Success Criterion 4.1.2 due to using script to make div or span a user interface control in HTML without providing a role for the control (https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20160317/F59) already covers this situation. My concern was around those rare situations when text needs to be placed in the focus order and is not interactive. It sounds like the default native semantic structure elements would be sufficient absent role of none.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
<EMAIL REMOVED>
703.637.8957 (Office)
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:56 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG Violation for use of tabindex=0 on static elements.

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
>