WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Group items with tabindex that have focusable children.

for

Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)

From: Jonathan Cohn
Date: Wed, Jul 20 2016 6:30PM
Subject: Group items with tabindex that have focusable children.
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,

My group has a standard procedure a div containing a set of check boxes and assigning a role="group" too this div.

This seems to work OK with some browser combinations and screen readers in that it reads the question and list of answers and then one can tab through the answers. But this feels wrong to me.

Does this violate a specific principle or policy?
Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Bossley, Pete
Date: Wed, Jul 20 2016 7:54PM
Subject: Re: Group items with tabindex that have focusable children.
← Previous message | Next message →

Why not use a fieldset of checkboxes as answers an the legend of the fieldset be the question?

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jul 20 2016 8:40PM
Subject: Re: Group items with tabindex that have focusable children.
← Previous message | No next message

Using the ARIA group role whose accessible name is the legend text for
the group a valid technique and is fairly well supported by screen
readers.
Of course, when native HTML can be used for the task, we should have
durn good reasons why it isn't used.
I wrote an article about the group role that can be found here:
http://a11yideas.com/testcode/makeGroupAccessible.html
Note, NVDA does not announce the legend of a fieldset, or accessible
name for a group, unless it goes into forms mode, something that it
does not do for checkboxes.
This is an NVDA defect and the ticket for it has existed for awhile
https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/issues/3321
There really is little the author can do to fix this, sort of major
hacks like using aria-describedby to associate the legend text with
the first checkbox, and I hope this gets addressed soon.
-Birkir


On 7/20/16, Bossley, Pete < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Why not use a fieldset of checkboxes as answers an the legend of the
> fieldset be the question?
>
>