WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Semi-inert modals

for

From: Kian Badie
Date: Mar 31, 2022 3:46PM

Thank you both for the input! First, here (
https://www.cellstructureatlas.org/1-10-putting-it-all-together.html#clem)
is an example of the exact thing I am working on with the modal already
opened if you are interested. Now that you bring up making the dialog fully
modal, I am realizing that the dialog appears fully modal on mobile since
there is less space. On desktop, if a user activates a link in the
header/footer the modal will not persist and it will navigate to the new
page. If another element is activated in the header (like search or opening
navigation menu) it will appear over that modal window. While I think this
makes sense at a glance, I would understand if this is bad accessibility
practice and I would want to see what I could change to make things better.
I suppose users don't need access to the header/footer while the modal is
open. However, it does feel a bit weird to have supplementary content take
up more space than the main content. I guess that is part of the reasoning
for the semi-modal dialog. But I am open to suggesting to my client to make
it fully modal on desktop too if that is the best practice to do.

The date picker example is interesting. It traps keyboard focus without
announcing anything. With both that and Birkir's suggestion of modifying
the tab order of the page, I do have a question. Do you have to make it
known to screen readers that the focus order is changed because of the
activated element? Or does the dialog role handle that already?

Thank you,
Kian Badie

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:04 PM Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Oh, just to clarify, there are a lot of cases for non-modal dialogs as
> Bryan pointed out.
> I am confused by the need for a semi-modal dialog, a dialog that
> blocks interaction with the entire main content of the page while
> allowing interactions with the page header and footer.
>
>
> On 3/31/22, Bryan Garaventa via WebAIM-Forum
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Actually there are use cases for non-modal dialogs. Here is one, a
> > datepicker where it is still possible to interact with background
> content.
> > https://whatsock.com/Templates/Datepickers/Basic/index.htm
> >
> > From a keyboard perspective on Windows using a screen reader like JAWS or
> > NVDA, the dialog seems modal because the user perspective is confined
> within
> > the dialog content. However, this is not true for touch device users
> such as
> > those using VoiceOver on iOS for example. In this last case, it is
> possible
> > to interact with the background content, which is important because the
> > triggering element is actually a toggle that can be used to dismiss the
> > dialog by touch.
> >
> > There are times when it is important to implement a non-modal dialog,
> and in
> > this case, adding aria-modal="true" will actually impaire the
> accessibility
> > of the widget by hiding the background content from iOS touch device
> users
> > by making the background content inaccessible. This automatically occurs
> > without the use of aria-hidden within this environment.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bryan Garaventa
> > Principal Accessibility Architect
> > Level Access, Inc.
> > <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > 415.624.2709 (o)
> > www.LevelAccess.com
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
> > Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 10:05 AM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Semi-inert modals
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the
> > content is safe.
> >
> >
> > ARIA Authoring Practices is not prescriptive/normative, while it is a
> great
> > guideline.
> > If we think about this from the user's perspective, which is the ultimate
> > end goal, a user with a mouse is not able to interact with the main
> content
> > of the page, so we must create the same affordance to someone using
> keyboard
> > or a screen reader, or as close to that as possible.
> > This means
> > * Hiding the main content of the page from a screen reader (you can add
> > aria-hidden="true" on the main content container, provided that the modal
> > dialog element is not a child of the main content container).
> > Block keyboard navigation to the main content, by setting tab key
> JavaScript
> > on the last focusable element in the header to either go to the footer or
> > the semi-modal dialog, ditto shift-tab on the first focusable element in
> the
> > footer.
> >
> > Would it be possible to request a design change to make the dialog fully
> > modal? Are there strong reasons why the user would want the dialog open
> > while being able to navigate in the header/footer? What happens if the
> user
> > activates a link in either the header or the footer, does the modal go
> away
> > and a new page loads, or does the modal stay open obscuring the main
> content
> > of the new page?
> > In either scenario I don't quite see why any user should have access to
> > header or footer while the dialog is open.
> >
> >
> > On 3/31/22, Kian Badie < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> I have a modal element that does not make all outside elements inert.
> >> The modal covers the content window, but does not cover the
> >> header/footer elements. Therefore, mouse users are able to have the
> >> modal open while accessing the nav menu, search, and other controls.
> >>
> >> The modal still makes the inner content window inert (inner content as
> >> in everything in between the header/footer). I figured I should still
> >> treat it as a modal (as described by
> >> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/#dialog_modal), however
> >> the aria practices state:
> >>
> >> "So, mark a dialog modal only when both:
> >> - Application code prevents all users from interacting in any way with
> >> content outside of it.
> >> - Visual styling obscures the content outside of it."
> >>
> >> So treating my modal as an actual modal would break that rule. Since
> >> it only made the inner content window inert, I leaned towards marking
> >> it up as a modal. Mouse users would still have access to the
> >> header/footer components and keyboard users could still access
> >> header/footer stuff by exiting the modal. However, it doesn't sit
> >> completely well to go against what I quoted from the aria practices.
> >>
> >> The alternative seems to not mark it up as a modal and manage tab
> >> order to tab through the header, modal, and footer elements to ignore
> >> the content underneath the "modal". But how would that be communicated
> >> in the markup/to screen readers? That doesn't feel right either. If I
> >> had to pick between the two options, it seems that marking it up as a
> >> modal is the better option, but I wanted to see if I could get any
> second
> >> opinions.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Kian Badie
> >> > >> > >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > > archives at
> > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >