WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Guy Hickling
Date: Mar 17, 2016 9:21AM

Michael, since it seems, from all the comments in this thread, that finding
support for this in the WCAG is, at best, somewhat shaky, or would
involve arguments that the client might not choose to accept, maybe
the answer
is to fall back on discrimination liability at law and the client's
possible vulnerability to that.

I don't know the details of how the law works on accessibility in the US,
you will know more about that than me; but here in the UK any claim of
disability discrimination would not need to rely on the WCAG for proof. A
disability claim could use the WCAG if it helped, but is not limited to
just that approach.

Under the Equality Act 2010 it is, quite simply, illegal to discriminate
against anyone due to their disability. It identifies "indirect
discrimination" which happens when a policy or practice is applied to
everyone, but it has a particular disadvantage for disabled people.

So a disabled person who has to use the keyboard would only have to
demonstrate to a court that a website is either unusable for them, or is
significantly more difficult for them to use than for non-disabled people,
due to practices pursued by the developers (in this case the indiscriminate
use of tabindex), in order to be very likely to win their case. A provider
of products or services must take steps to avoid discrimination. This
approach affects all kinds of things that might not be covered specifically
by the WCAG.

So in your position, I would just point out to the client their *probable*
liability under law, and no doubt that would be sufficient to cause them to
make the changes you recommend. Especially if, as Birkir suggested, it may
be that they simply misunderstand what tabindex is for. If this wouldn't
work the same way under US law, let me know.

Regards,
Guy Hickling