Re: [css-flexbox]

On 1/11/16 12:35 PM, "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> wrote:

>It was decided that, while the problem you raise is a real one, the
>proposed solution was suboptimal. A better solution is to reorder the
>DOM instead of using the 'order' property, as explained in this
>message.
>https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Aug/0347.html

That is sadly a lack of resolution to the problem rather than a solution.
I would like to echo my sentiments and offer a suggestion, in parallel to
what Richard[1] posted today.

As a developer, I have already made extensive use of re-'order'. It has
somewhat become a critical responsive design tool already. Reordering from
desktop to mobile being one of the main reasons for me to use it. And
using order "only as directed" per fantasai, is not an option I can afford
to consider. As much as I care about accessibility and know that there are
unfortunate jumps at this time. I can't do this in any other way.

The only poor alternative left would be, having to write yet another
script that has to reorder the DOM upon device orientation etc, solely to
address this issue. And to contest Brad's words. I don't really think, JS
is one of the better tools here.

1. Updating the DOM along loops with getComputeStyle() is very expensive.

2. In responsive design context, a static 'tab-index' markup won't work.
Device orientation or window resize may change the sequential order. And
any change in 'tabindex' means having to redo it for the entire tree.

I can't begin to think of generic JS script method to figure out break
points and context all together. It seems extremely hard if not an
impossible task.

Doing a reorder with a CSS 'tab-order' property along with Media Queries
would be far more simple for authors to apply on case-by-case basis.

Or how about a possible compromise solution with a new CSS toggle property
(along flex/grid etc.) defining the 'accessible tab-index order' as either
'flex/grid order' or 'visual order'?

That would leave CSS un-opinionated, and leave the order choice to the
author, while also accommodating for the expressed accessibility concerns.
Thoughts?

-Bruno

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jan/0025.html

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 23:21:14 UTC