Re: Techniques for 2.4.7 (controversial)

The two general techniques listed seem to be the same; if there are
differences, they are subtle. Should they be combined?

I can't comment on the tabindex issues. I'll need to defer to the more
html-knowledgeable.


On 2/13/06 3:47 AM, "Yvette Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl> wrote:

> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> As per my action item, I reviewed the techniques for 2.4.7 (When a delivery
> unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that
> follows relationships and sequences in the content).
> 
> I found that I couldn't find any good examples of using tabindex. In my
> experience, tabindex is often used to create taborders that do *not* follow
> relationships and sequences in the content. The only legitimate use I could
> think of is the redundant specification of the taborder that follows the
> relationships and sequences in the content. But in that case, simply putting
> the interactive elements in the correct order already creates a logical tab
> order and doesn't need tabindex.
> 
> For this reason, I have created an additional general technique to place
> interactive elements in an order that follows sequences and relationships in
> the content and removed the existing HTML techniques that had to do with
> tabindex. I have added a Failure due to using tabindex to create a tab order
> that does not follow relationships and structures in the content.
> 
> Before I put any more effort in this, I would like to hear what the rest of
> you think of this development. Do you like the direction I'm going in?
> 
> Yvette Hoitink
> Heritas, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands
> E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
> WWW: http://www.heritas.nl
> 
>

Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 14:58:41 UTC