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

Re: 2.4.3, 1.3.2

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:44:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWYMmaTHY6xOcWJVwksHBpxTxUZ78+LUoei9tuTL86nw6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:16 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.

This does open up lots of possibilities. This should be an interesting

> 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 06:44:51 UTC

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