W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 2.4.3, 1.3.2

From: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:16:44 +0300
Message-ID: <CALKv3=jZrc=9-YT+yg4-s_7RAW-_G-WjimoPSMOmvVynC7mUhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Basically the principle is the same, just that html5 applies tabindex to be
global (not just focusable form elements), AND lets us declare a value of
-1. So we might have some useful examples for these two differences that we
would not have in html4.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <
lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:

> I think you are saying that because the default tab order would conform to
> WCAG, there is no need for a technique that changes the tab order.
> But changing the tab order is permissible under WCAG as long as the
> resulting order "makes sense". And if the author thinks that changing the
> tab order improves the usability, we want to make it clear that this still
> conforms. So although the author did not need to change the tab order in any
> of the H4 examples, changing it in these ways does not violate WCAG.
> Is there something different about tabindex in HTML5? If not, we may not
> need an additional technique. We may just need to see whether H4 applies to
> HTML5, as well, or can be modified so that it is clear that it also applies
> to HTML5.
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:03 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote:
>> I guess I am just missing something. I still feel that sufficient
>> techniques, though not being the only option for satisfying a success
>> criterion, do in fact come to correct some deficiency in the web page. Sure,
>> there are other ways to do it, but the deficiency needs to be addressed one
>> way or the other. In H4, there is no deficiency by WCAG standards. Since the
>> reading order is acceptable (if it weren't, we couldn't use this technique
>> anyway since it violates 1.3.2), the focus order must also be acceptable by
>> definition, and the added benefit of reading one person at a time in the
>> bride/groom example adds no WCAG success to the web page, and addresses no
>> WCAG deficiency.
>> If you all still think that this is a valid technique, then I will draft
>> the html5 technique in accordance with this one, and hopefully have it ready
>> for this week's meeting.
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <
>> lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>>> Adam, I am still having trouble understanding why you think the inclusion
>>> of the HTML tabindex technique is a problem.
>>> I think you are claiming that it is unnecessary? That it is always
>>> possible to use a different technique to satisfy the success criterion? Am I
>>> understanding that correctly?
>>> Loretta
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:46 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Sailesh,
>>>> If one would expect to fill out the form one person at a time, would the
>>>> default table layout (not taking into consideration focus order) not violate
>>>> 1.3.2? After all, the programmatically determined reading order would read
>>>> the cells of the table row by row, not person by person. If so, then this is
>>>> not a sufficient technique.
>>>> We must then conclude that there is no violation of 1.3.2, and the
>>>> author's tabindexing is only a preference, in which a case this technique is
>>>> totally irrelevant.
>>>> Either way, there is a problem.
>>>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <
>>>> lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Sailesh Panchang <
>>>>> spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Loretta,
>>>>>> In principle, if you content:
>>>>>> >But the use of H4 is not required for SC 2.4.3...
>>>>>> Then why is it listed as a sufficient technique?
>>>>> Because it is sufficient. You may use it, but you may use some other
>>>>> sufficient technique.
>>>>>> Adam,
>>>>>> Well in that example of groom and bride, without tabindex, one may
>>>>>> content that reading order is meaningful. But if one navigates across fields
>>>>>> row-wise, it does affect meaning or operation. As I said in my last email,
>>>>>> the intent is not to compare first names but actually enter data into a
>>>>>> form. I imagine most would want to be done with data for one person then
>>>>>>  input data for the next. While filling out paper forms too,I'd complete the
>>>>>> form for person#1 and then person#2 and not fill out first name for person#1
>>>>>> then jump to form for the other chap and fill out his first name. That is
>>>>>> not logical. On a Web page the fields may be placed next to each other
>>>>>> visually but they are meant to be navigated "logically" for person#1 and
>>>>>> then #2. It is not the author's choice or reading  order... the author is
>>>>>> constrained by layout / design and must use tabindex (h4) to ensure
>>>>>> navigation does not affect operation.
>>>>>> Sailesh
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 06:17:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:08 UTC