Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?

Jon,
In the ARIA example the focus lands on the tabs and then you hit the right arrow and the indication shfts to the next tab but the tab doesn’t become active. What event would you say is fired with regard to the state when the user does hit enter?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 15:44
To: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?

In my opinion switching between tabs with arrow keys is changing focus and selection.   Just as moving up and down in an ARIA combo box with pop up list that takes focus moves both selection and focus.

Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2018, at 2:40 PM, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>> wrote:
I’ll try to reply to various comments throughout this thread…

First, it is unclear to me from issue #650 whether or not the commenter is talking about true tabbed interfaces, or simply menus that respond to tabbing.  However, it doesn’t really matter what the UI component actually is but rather how it functions using a keyboard or pointer.  If stuff appears on focus or hover, then it applies.

With regard to the applicability to tabbed interfaces (i.e. role=”tab”)…The answer depends on how the keyboard and pointer interactions are implemented.  Taking the ARIA Authoring Practices example, Andrew is correct in saying that the SC is not applicable because keyboard focus on the tab is not what makes its associated tabpanel appear.  The tablist receives focus and simply transfers it to the currently displayed tab, then the next focusable element is the tabpanel.  There are only 2 ways to make the “additional” tab panel content appear:

  1.  Click the tab with the pointer, or
  2.  Move focus into the tablist, then use the arrow keys to select a new tab.  This is functionally equivalent to a <select> which displays different content onblur or on selection.
Thus, there is no real applicability for the SC in this example.  And furthermore, most tabs that I experience pretty much use an onclick() approach since it’s the easiest way to also be mobile-friendly, so there’s no applicability for most tabs in the wild either.

So, could the SC apply to a tabbed interface?  Yes, certainly, but only if it truly works on just hover and/or focus, and that would be a horrible user experience for everyone in most tab applications.

I’m happy to add some stuff to the Understanding discussing tabs to reflect all this.

With regard to defining “additional content”… I view this as already defined by the SC language itself, i.e. anything that requires an element to be focused or hovered before it becomes visible is the additional content.  Referring to it as “additional” is nothing more than a convenience so that it is clear what is being talked about in the 3 conditions and has no other meaning beyond that.  I think the Understanding already makes this clear.

With regard to going back to popup, popover, or scoping to “overlay”… This was extremely confusing for many folks even with a clear definition, and that definition would need to scope it to the same content as is now, so I do not agree with going back down that winding road.  Moreover, scoping to only overlays misses the point of the Hoverable and Persistent conditions, i.e. those conditions are there to assist with viewing and operating the additional content and it’s irrelevant whether or not anything else is being obscured.

With regard to the general notion of additional content that is not overlaying or obscuring anything else... I originally had this in the Dismissable bullet, but the working group discussed it and decided to remove it.  That is, it originally read: “..., unless the additional content communicates an input error or does not obscure any other content.”  I’m fine with adding that back in if the group feels it is important, but that seems irrelevant to issue #650.

Steve

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 9:13 AM
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com<mailto:melanie.philipp@deque.com>>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
Subject: Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?

Would be good to hear from Steve about David’s last question (“without moving the pointer”)…

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cc1ab430469b3460d576e08d557a1b4c0%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511274398952532&sdata=s%2B0bXroM1auVuvFZir4NdB9fbR0lAdQlyTZJiYnN3mA%3D&reserved=0>

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 09:09
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com<mailto:melanie.philipp@deque.com>>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>, "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>, "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
Subject: Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 09:06

I agree with going back to using popup, or something similar and then defining it.

For me, "overlay" makes me think of a light box, dialogue box etc., which is not generally a hover based popup... but could live with it if it's defined or clear in another way the the SC is not talking about those things.

I also hope we address the first bullet regarding closing the popup "without moving the pointer". The pointer can't do anything without moving, can it?


Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1b834c3267a1401141d408d5576aa824%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511037986556013&sdata=RXjoK%2BQSrASybKHpuekjkWn8gCASZXRhmtskbWEecAE%3D&reserved=0>

twitter.com/davidmacd<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1b834c3267a1401141d408d5576aa824%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511037986556013&sdata=VFyQOEHH4rswqjT4fAxYx1Nq1%2FRuiLRgySJXsm8Lvjw%3D&reserved=0>

GitHub<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1b834c3267a1401141d408d5576aa824%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511037986556013&sdata=R9guICJvEtWHXiOrw7pHEZsN7hGJKEMGDg%2B57iQtKdE%3D&reserved=0>

www.Can-Adapt.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1b834c3267a1401141d408d5576aa824%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511037986556013&sdata=y%2Fl%2B%2BjyVXSsCqz9C4HEh%2B%2FdINxl%2FupDQs2s%2FQfgEYoI%3D&reserved=0>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C1b834c3267a1401141d408d5576aa824%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636511037986556013&sdata=yFSCmytaEgts7eziLkG2UoY2g1sKhfg2r%2F8htWTUvvg%3D&reserved=0>

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:53 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
I think we should explore this option to see whether it covers the desired cases – and only them.

From: Melanie Philipp [mailto:melanie.philipp@deque.com<mailto:melanie.philipp@deque.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:35 AM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
Subject: Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?

Did you explore the word "overlay"? As in:

"When pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content that overlays other content, the following are true:"

Perhaps no new definition would be required with this approach.

Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS
Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
540-848-5220<tel:(540)%20848-5220>
www.deque.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deque.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Ce8e6783165f245ebfec608d55765cf55%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636511017148326835&sdata=l5ZDl1U%2BmyHTTmbDvxEhoE1kpRrgVYmZupozmjm7gWM%3D&reserved=0>

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:59 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:


From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:00 AM

I agree it would help to have something like ‘pop-over’ as the target of the SC. I’m fairly sure we did at one stage, Steve (CCed) might be able to remember why we dropped that?
[Jason] The term was used (with disagreement about whether it should be “popup” or “popover”), but I don’t recall there being a definition. It was relatively uncontroversial, as I recall, that these terms did not have a generally accepted meaning that was clear or precise enough to meet our testability requirements.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________