E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: glen walker
Date: Wed, May 06 2020 1:25PM
Subject: 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
No previous message | Next message →

There was a huge discussion on mega menus from several years ago (
https://webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread?thread=6730), over 30+ comments,
and this topic was somewhat touched on but not really resolved.

If submenu elements are "fake" hidden, meaning you can't see them but
they're still in the tab order (and by "submenu", I'm not necessarily
talking about real "menus" vs navigation menus that are just a list of
links - I don't want to open that can of worms), do you fail that with
2.4.7 because you can't see see a visible focus or do you fail it with
2.1.1?

I often see 2.1.1 noted in this case but that doesn't feel right to me.
2.1.1 talks about elements that should be keyboard operable. In this case,
the submenu items *are* keyboard operable. I just can see them. 2.4.7
feels more appropriate. But playing the devil's advocate, I could see
someone getting snarky and when the hidden element receives focus, they
draw a focus rectangle so that the focus is visible, but you still can't
see the text that has focus (similar to how VoiceOver will focus on a fake
hidden element).

My feeling is that it's a problem that needs to be fixed and whether you
cite it as 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 might not matter as long as the problem gets
resolved.

I was just curious how others treated it.

From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, May 06 2020 2:44PM
Subject: Re: 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
← Previous message | Next message →

I think it's clearly a 2.4.7 (focus visible) error, but I'd fail under
2.1.1 also. This states "All functionality of the content is operable
through a keyboard interface..." and I think it's very hard to argue
that the "functionality" (defined as "processes and outcomes") is
actually "operable" using a keyboard if a keyboard user has no idea
what the keyboard interactions are doing. Saying it passes 2.1.1 would
be like saying a video passes captioning requirements when the
captions are there, but totally transparent and invisible, or like
saying sufficient alternative text is present, when it is hidden from
screen reader users.

This is further clarified in G202
(https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G202.html) which
states, "When all functionality of content can be operated through a
keyboard or keyboard interface, it can be operated by those with no
vision as well as by those who must use alternate keyboards or input
devices that act as keyboard emulators like speech input software or
on-screen keyboards."

Jared

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, May 06 2020 3:10PM
Subject: Re: 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 06/05/2020 21:44, Jared Smith wrote:
> I think it's clearly a 2.4.7 (focus visible) error, but I'd fail under
> 2.1.1 also. This states "All functionality of the content is operable
> through a keyboard interface..." and I think it's very hard to argue
> that the "functionality" (defined as "processes and outcomes") is
> actually "operable" using a keyboard if a keyboard user has no idea
> what the keyboard interactions are doing. Saying it passes 2.1.1 would
> be like saying a video passes captioning requirements when the
> captions are there, but totally transparent and invisible, or like
> saying sufficient alternative text is present, when it is hidden from
> screen reader users.

If there is a keyboard-operable way to open/close the fake menus
visually too, to me that would swing it more towards a pass of 2.1.1.
But if there isn't, then yes feels like 2.1.1 would be appropriate
failure (I'd fail for the lack of ability to open the menus).

I'd also throw 2.4.3 Focus Order into the mix, as when the menus are
closed, the focus should not jump into the hidden things (though one
COULD argue that the order is still logical in a sense).

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

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Thu, May 07 2020 5:59AM
Subject: Re: 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
← Previous message | Next message →

I've reported this under 2.4.3 in the past, though internally I don't
attach WCAG success criteria to issues.
I think it's a bit of a gap in WCAG, one which could be addressed with
either a new one or clearer language around one of the 3 candidates.


On 5/6/20, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On 06/05/2020 21:44, Jared Smith wrote:
>> I think it's clearly a 2.4.7 (focus visible) error, but I'd fail under
>> 2.1.1 also. This states "All functionality of the content is operable
>> through a keyboard interface..." and I think it's very hard to argue
>> that the "functionality" (defined as "processes and outcomes") is
>> actually "operable" using a keyboard if a keyboard user has no idea
>> what the keyboard interactions are doing. Saying it passes 2.1.1 would
>> be like saying a video passes captioning requirements when the
>> captions are there, but totally transparent and invisible, or like
>> saying sufficient alternative text is present, when it is hidden from
>> screen reader users.
>
> If there is a keyboard-operable way to open/close the fake menus
> visually too, to me that would swing it more towards a pass of 2.1.1.
> But if there isn't, then yes feels like 2.1.1 would be appropriate
> failure (I'd fail for the lack of ability to open the menus).
>
> I'd also throw 2.4.3 Focus Order into the mix, as when the menus are
> closed, the focus should not jump into the hidden things (though one
> COULD argue that the order is still logical in a sense).
>
> 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
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Laura Fathauer
Date: Thu, May 07 2020 6:51AM
Subject: Re: 2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
← Previous message | Next message →

Interesting. I do 2.4.7 focus visible, since the focus indicator is
not visible. I wouldn't do 2.1.1 unless the menu couldn't be expanded
by keyboard, or the menu items themselves could not be navigated to or
activated with the keyboard once the menu is expanded. Likewise, I
wouldn't do 2.4.3 Focus Order unless there is a clear break in the
logic of the order, though I could see the argument that if the menu
items are not visible, then logically the focus order would only take
you to the visible items.

Laura Fathauer
Miami University

From: Brian Lovely
Date: Thu, May 07 2020 6:59AM
Subject: Re: [External Sender]2.4.7 or 2.1.1 on "hidden" submenu elements?
← Previous message | No next message

I call out 2.4.3 Focus Order, because sighted keyboard only users have a
"ghost tab" for each visibly hidden button or link. For large menu items,
that can be a lot of tab presses




The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.