WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Misuse of TabIndex 0

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Jul 7, 2017 1:02PM

Patrick,
Your view now seems to differ from the one you expressed in Nov /2015
when you seemed to agree with Michael re. 'operability' besides his
other assertions?
We are not discussing broken keyboard operability for elements that
are indeed operable ... so I do not understand application of 2.1.1 to
non-operable element with tabindex=0 now.
I do not see what you state for visible focus indicator as part of the
normative text of that SC. The Understanding doc covers 'operable'
elements.
Thanks,
On 7/7/17, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 18:39, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 2.1.1 will depend on the situation. I will often note it there as part
> of a more general "keyboard operation is inappropriate/broken" point if
> present.
>
>> 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.
>
> 2.4.7 says that the focus needs to be visible as otherwise sighted users
> will get lost/not know where their focus is. If the focus is on an
> element that has tabindex=0, it needs to be visible that there is focus
> there - regardless of whether it's appropriate or not that the element
> should receive focus in the first place. So it would fail 2.4.7 IF there
> was a non-interactive element receiving focus and focus indication was
> NOT given, as to a sighted user that would then appear as though the
> focus disappears and reappears when they navigate through the page.
>
>> What meaning and operability is preserved by adding tabindex=0 for
>> sighted keyboard users? I rely on WG guidance (references) in my last
>> email.
>
> I'm not saying that it's appropriate to add tabindex=0 to
> non-interactive elements. I am simply clarifying that, in my view, it's
> not a strict failure of neither 2.4.3 (see for instance the
> "understanding" document
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-order.html
> which, at least from skim-reading it, does not necessarily say anything
> about non-interactive elements receiving focus being a failure - though
> I do personally still note it in 2.4.3 and sometimes, depending on
> context, 2.1.1), nor 2.4.7 (as whatever it is that receives focus, the
> focus needs to be visible - regardless of whether it's right or wrong
> that that particular element/thing received focus or not).
>
> 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