- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 07:59:43 +0100
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:07:04 +0100, Ojan Vafai <ojan at chromium.org> wrote: > We keep running into the use case where the physical position matters for > the tab order. The problem with just setting tabIndex (or CSS3 tab-index) > is that it takes the thing out of the natural order. > > This problem comes up in a lot of places (e.g. absolute positioning). > It's > recently come up for CSS flexboxes, e.g. if you set flex-order or a > reverse > flow, then the tabindex still being in document order is often not what > the > author wants (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62664). http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-August/007228.html :-) > <button tabindex=0>A</button> > <div tabindex=2 tabindexscope> > <button tabindex=2>C</button> > <button tabindex=1>B</button> > </div> > <button tabindex=1>D</button> > > The order for the tabbing would be A-D-B-C. In legacy UAs the div would also be in the tab order. Maybe it's better to drop tabindex=2 and use tabindexscope=2 instead (default to 0 if omitted). > Ojan -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 22:59:43 UTC