Re: Conflicting inclusion/exclusion criteria for elements in the accessibility tree (Was: Re: [ARIA] Agenda: March 3, 2016 WAI-ARIA Working Group)

If the only exception in the HTML docs (for a user agent adding an element
with negative tabindex into the tab order) is accessibility-related, are we
allowed to add an accessibility-related clarification?  (Maybe in HTML-AAM?)

If something has negative tabindex *and* aria-hidden="true", it should
definitely not be in the tab order!

Either way, Core AAM should refer to the general situation (is the element
in the tab order), and the host languages deal with how the element gets
there (or not).  For example, when modal dialogs in HTML 5.1 ship, whole
branches of the DOM will be excluded from the tab order depending on the
modal state.

On 15 March 2016 at 10:40, Joseph Scheuhammer <> wrote:

> Hi Amelia,
> On 2016-03-15 10:51 AM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds wrote:
>> A negative tabindex value will always make an element "focusable but not
>> in the current tab order", regardless of whether or not it is normally
>> focusable by default.
> Apparently, it's not that simple*.  The HTML documentation for negative
> tabindex says that it "... should not allow the element be reached using
> sequential focus navigation".  Note that it's a "should not" and not a
> "must not".  In subsequent note, it gives an example of a keyboard only
> user, and states that if the sequential navigation is the only way the user
> can move focus to the element then the "... user agent would be well
> justified in allowing the user to tab to the control regardless" [1].
> [1]
> * - me pining for simplicity.
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
> 'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Drau├čen. Wieder.'
>                  - C. Carter -

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 17:53:18 UTC