RE: Proposal to change documentation on tabindex to strongly discourage values greater 0

For fast and repetitive data input, there are scenarios that require for user-determined tab order within a set of given fields since the layout cannot be changed normally (for instance, if there is no option to hide fields rarely used).

This can be done for simple cases using user-defined tab chains replacing tabindex=0 by larger numbers, but I also see the limitations/implications of this technical solution, as Marco pointed out.

Therefore I second James idea of scoped order but we need a more elaborated concept addressing the needs given above before we forbid tabindex > 0.

Anyway, discouraging info in validators should point to this better concept and not just say "forbidden", otherwise people won't switch to alternatives.


-          Stefan

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2014 19:01
To: james.nurthen@oracle.com
Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer; Dominic Mazzoni; Matthew King; Marco Zehe; public-html@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: Re: Proposal to change documentation on tabindex to strongly discourage values greater 0


I fully support discouraging the use of tabindex values greater than zero - in the interim until we look at the broader navigation discussion.

A related concern is new features in CSS is doing with features like flexbox and determine how best to address focus navigation automatically.

I can tell you that one way we have addressed this in another document format is providing a document attribute that allowed the author to programmatically determine the tabbing order in ODF. This was of great help for technologies like Impress for Open Office. I am not suggesting that this be THE vehicle but merely to suggest other strategies. This could be applied to say an HTML5 <section> or element with role="region".

With technologies like SVG the author is going to want to adjust the flow of the page and not rely on solely on DOM traversal as the sequencing mechanism going forward.  This goes beyond "regions". We might want some sort of connector sequencing strategy.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger

[Inactive hide details for "james.nurthen@oracle.com" ---10/16/2014 11:39:02 AM---While I agree than positive tabindex is normal]"james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>" ---10/16/2014 11:39:02 AM---While I agree than positive tabindex is normally a bad idea what we really need is a replacement tha

From: "james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>" <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>
To: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com<mailto:dmazzoni@google.com>>
Cc: Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu<mailto:clown@alum.mit.edu>>, Marco Zehe <mzehe@mozilla.com<mailto:mzehe@mozilla.com>>, "public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>
Date: 10/16/2014 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal to change documentation on tabindex to strongly discourage values greater 0

________________________________



While I agree than positive tabindex is normally a bad idea what we really need is a replacement that is usable rather than forbidding the use of the only tool that people have available to them to change the focus order.
What we really need is some sort of scoped version of tabindex where we can control the focus order within a region without it affecting the entire page.

Regards,
James


On Oct 16, 2014, at 09:16, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com<mailto:dmazzoni@google.com>> wrote:
+1!



On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
+1!!!!!!!


Matt King
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement
Phone: (503) 578-2329<tel:%28503%29%20578-2329>, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>



From:        Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu<mailto:clown@alum.mit.edu>>
To:        Marco Zehe <mzehe@mozilla.com<mailto:mzehe@mozilla.com>>, public-html@w3.org<mailto:public-html@w3.org>,
Cc:        W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>
Date:        10/16/2014 07:47 AM
Subject:        Re: Proposal to change documentation on tabindex to strongly discourage  values greater 0
________________________________




+1

Regarding the proposed changes, there is a need to handle old markup
that uses tabindex values greater than 0.  A possibility is that
browsers treat tabindex=1+ as if it were tabindex=0.

> [CC'ing Public PFWG list for info]
>
> Hello all!
>
> This is a proposal to declare tabIndex values > 0 invalid in the spec
> and the validator, or at least strongly advise against the use of
> positive integers values for this attribute.
> Rationale: The tabIndex attribute is used to make items focusable with
> the keyboard and programmatically. Currently, it takes three classes
> of values:
>
>   * 0: The element is made focusable, and it is integrated into the
>     tab order at its location in the DOM.
>   * -1: The element is made focusable, but is skipped in the tab
>     order, but can still take focus programmatically.
>   * > 0: The items are put in the tab order first, and their order is
>     determined by the actual value. Only if all those elements have
>     been traversed via tab, does the order in the DOM take effect.
>
> This third class of values has in the past lead to nothing but
> frustration among web developers and keyboard users, judging from
> feedback I get in my day to day accessibility work. Due to author
> error, which mostly stems from lack of awareness, tab order on many
> sites that use tabIndex improperly is erratic and not user-friendly.
> For further reading on this, I suggest a post published on the
> Paciello Group blog by Léonie Watson in August of 2014:
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2014/08/using-the-tabindex-attribute/
>
> Proposed changes:
>
>  1. Include explicit advice to not use tabIndex with a value greater
>     than 0 in the next version of the documentation.
>  2. Change the W3C validator to spit out an error on tabIndex values
>     other than 0 and -1.
>
>
> Associated bug: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27076
>
> --
> Marco

--
;;;;joseph.

'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
          - G. Bernhardt -