E-mail List Archives
Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour
From: Isabel Holdsworth
Date: Feb 25, 2019 3:34AM
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- Previous message: chagnon@pubcom.com: "Any federal agencies using PAC3?"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- View all messages in this Thread
Accessibility experts are divided on the subject of whether disabled
components should remain in the tab order. Personally, on balance, I
think that disabling a component should make it unfocusable and remove
it from the tab order. But this issue of breaking consistency is an
interesting one, and it would be great to read other people's
thoughts.
On 24/02/2019, Jonathan Avila < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hi Detlev, 3.2.3 only applies when the navigation mechanism is repeated
> across multiple web pages in a set of pages and also allows for same
> relative order which I think would likely mean that this would not fail
> 3.2.3. However, just because the content is available in the virtual cursor
> doesn't mean the user will be able to easily find it. So there could be
> some cases where placing it in the focus order could be helpful to some
> users unless there is some mechanism to help the user understand why they
> can't access something.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- Previous message: chagnon@pubcom.com: "Any federal agencies using PAC3?"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Inactive controls, focus behaviour"
- View all messages in this Thread