WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG - Fail or not to - Static text tab-focusable in tables


From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 31, 2020 9:42AM

I guess it's the luxury of working with one program ;) I can use the
"Birkir says it's a fail" without having to exercise WCAG gymnastics.
I don't use it all the time, but for this problem I wouldn't allow it. *grin*
One more creative option, again a longshot, is evoking 2.1.2 .. if the
table has hundreds of static focusable elements I think one can argue
that while it is not an absolute keyboard trap, for practical
purposes, it acts as one for anyone who needs to navigate to functions
further down the page.
In fact, if the page is in an authenticated environment with session
timeouts, it is possible that getting through the table would be so
slow that the session times out, and then the user is sent back to the
top of the page. In that situation it would be a keyboard trap.
Again, the main issue is to file a bug with React and getting this
resolved for future developers.

On 12/31/20, Sailesh Panchang < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> I encourage the and patient readers to browse through the WebAim
> thread started in Nov/2015 and later on had some posts in 2017:
> "[WebAIM] Misuse of TabIndex 0"
> Thanks and best wishes,
> Sailesh
> On 12/31/20, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> On 30/12/2020 15:39, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>>> SC 2.4.3 reads: If a Web page can be navigated sequentially and the
>>> navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable components
>>> receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability.
>>> Yes, navigation sequences affect meaning or operation when it
>>> needlessly navigates to static content.
>> The *order* seems to be meaningfully correct though. In terms of
>> operation, it makes it more tedious to operate, but it doesn't *affect*
>> operation in terms of not making it operable.
>> 2.1.1 specifies that things need to be operable with a keyboard. Again,
>> it doesn't say *how*, or that it must be nice/easy. So 2.1.1 would also
>> not fail, normatively.
>> Long story short, I'd lean towards: doesn't actually hard-fail any WCAG
>> SC, but is still horrible usability and should be noted as a best
>> practice advice.
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> >> >> >> >>
> --
> Join me at axe-con 2021: a free digital accessibility conference. Read more
> at
> https://www.deque.com/axe-con/
> Feel free to contact Deque marketing if you have any questions. Thanks!
> Sailesh Panchang
> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems Inc
> 381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, VA 20170
> Mobile: 571-344-1765
> ** Stay Positive Test Negative **
> > > > >

Work hard. Have fun. Make history.