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