WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Misuse of TabIndex 0

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Jul 7, 2017 11:39AM

Patrick,
Not sure how one can invoke 2.1.1 on an element that is simply not
operable in any way i.e. even via a mouse.
Forcing focus on a static element does not make it operable. So a
visual focus indicator for such an element compounds the problem and
adds another failure: 2.4.7.
What meaning and operability is preserved by adding tabindex=0 for
sighted keyboard users? I rely on WG guidance (references) in my last
email.
Thanks and best wishes,


On 7/7/17, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 14:35, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>> Michael,
>> Does this not directly contravene SC 2.4.3: '...focusable components
>> receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability'?
>
> Going purely by the word of WCAG (if we want to split hairs), once you
> add tabindex=0 you've made an element focusable, so it's just the order
> that matters.
>
> I do however usually note unnecessary tab stops on non-interactive
> controls under 2.4.3 (and, under certain situations, cross-reference the
> failure from 2.1.1 Keyboard as well).
>
> I wouldn't say it fails 2.4.7 though, because once you've made an
> element that's not normally focusable focusable, then it needs to have a
> visible focus indication. The fact that it shouldn't be focusable in the
> first place is no excuse for not indicating the focus visibly.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >


--
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
Phone 703-225-0380 ext 105
Mobile: 571-344-1765