- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:28:18 -0700
- To: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHu5OWa2NUeL_1b+rv7tnx3vjDJowgi6P2qK6VfrcbaELm46xg@mail.gmail.com>
Adam, you are right that the default tab order also meets SC 2.4.3. But the use of H4 is not required for SC 2.4.3, failure to use a sufficient technique is not failure to meet the success criterion. The HTML author who uses no tabindex is using G59: Placing the interactive elements in an order that follows sequences and relationships within the content<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/G59> . H4 is included to demonstrate that SC 2.4.3 can be satisfied with a tab order that differs from the default reading order if the order does not affect the meaning or operability of the content. Note that it is only a sufficient technique for 2.4.3, not for 1.3.2. In HTML, tabindex does not change the reading order. Loretta On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:21 AM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks for the response, Sailesh. I still contend that in the examples, > tabindex need not be added to satisfy WCAG. It is only present to satisfy > the authors personal preferences. The words "does not suffice" in the > description really mean not sufficient for the author, but yes sufficient > for WCAG. Take the bride and groom example. The default reading order would > certainly be sufficient to satisfy 1.3.2 (for if not we anyway would have a > violation of 1.3.2), so why is the author adding tabindex? The answer must > be that he prefers to have the tab order in a different sequence for user > convenience. Yet, even without his intervention, both 1.3.2 and 2.4.3 are > satisfied. Thus, the examples given in H4 are not necessary to satisfy any > success criterion. On the contrary, they simply don't create a failure. I > always assumed that a sufficient technique is defined as one which actively > satisfies a success criterion, such that if it were not implemented (and > assuming no other technique was used) then there would be a failure. This > does not seem to be the case with the examples in H4. > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>wrote: > >> Adam, >> In the first example for H4, the author believes it makes better sense to >> read the fields for the groom and then the bride and has used tabindex. >> Sometimes, the tab order goes to main content area and then to nav links >> that perhaps precede it in reading order. And this may be done via tabindex. >> Consider another scenario: >> <div on the left> >> Product name 1 with h tag >> Some info >> Learn more link >> Price info >> Add to cart button >> </div> >> <div on the right> >> Product name 2 with h tag >> Some info >> Learn more link >> Price info >> Add to cart button >> </div> >> Default reading order and tab order is fine. But I have seen instances >> where tabindex has been added that takes focus from one learn more link to >> the next and then from one add to cart button to the next. Here focus order >> does not match logical reading order... hence the line in h4 that saes make >> sure the two match. >> H4 begins with 'default order does not suffice'. >> Rightho, >> Sailesh Panchang >> --- On Sat, 8/13/11, Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> From: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> >> Subject: RE: 2.4.3, 1.3.2 >> To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com> >> Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 3:31 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Tabindex is listed as one of the techniques in >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/HTML5 for 2.4.3, focus order. >> Use of tabindex in html5 is basically the same as in 4, except that it >> applies to all elements. In the html4 techniques, >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2011/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20110621/H4 uses >> specifically set tabindex values as a means of fulfilling SC 2.4.3. In the >> understanding document for 2.4.3, it states that care must be taken to make >> sure the focus order matches the programmatically determined reading order. >> As a result, all the examples in H4 are fairly harmless. In other words, it >> seems that in all of the examples, there is no necessity to add tabindex >> values to change the focus order, rather a slight preference by the author >> to do so. The reason for this is that inherently, where there is a necessity >> to add tabindex values to straighten out the tab order, we must assume that >> the programmatically determined reading order is incorrect, >> otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary to add those values in the first >> place. The point of all this is that in all the examples even if the author >> did not choose to add tabindex values, the page would still fulfill 2.4.3. I >> can’t think of a case where adding tabindex is actually fulfilling 2.4.3, >> except in a case where only sighted users were viewing the page and the only >> thing that counted was the tab order, and not the programmatically >> determined reading order. Is H4 really a sufficient technique for 2.4.3? >> >> >> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:43 PM >> To: adam solomon >> Cc: WCAG >> Subject: Re: 2.4.3, 1.3.2 >> >> Andrew should weigh in on this, but I believe this is the way things work >> in Flash, that tabindex can be used to control the reading order of all the >> content, not just interactive content. >> >> Using tabindex in HTML is not a sufficient technique for 1.3.2. >> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 2:03 AM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> We have Using tabindex in flash as a sufficient technique in 2.4.3 and >> 1.3.2. 1.3.2 stipulates meaningful sequence to be programmatically >> determined. Can someone explain how tabindex facilitates this? Tabindex will >> never fix a bad sequence for screen readers, so how can it satisfy 1.3.2? >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2011 14:28:44 UTC