Re: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order

+1:  yes, of course

Op za 30 mei 2020 om 00:16 schreef Katherine Eng <eng@access-board.gov>:

> Brooks wrote: In my understanding, the word “advancing” means moving
> forward – not just moving from element to element, but moving forward
> through the page content from element to element.
>
>
>
> Same. This was my understanding as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kathy Eng
>
>
>
> *From:* Newton, Brooks (TR Product) <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 6:05 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>
>
> I agree that with you that it is completely possible for users to move
> backward in the focus order following a sequence that is different from
> what the forward focus order is, and still find that the focus order in
> either direction preserves meaning and operability of the page content.
>
>
>
> My point of contention with expanding the SC to cover backwards Tabbing
> lies in the glossary definition used to explain “navigated sequentially” in
> the SC 2.4.7 Focus Order normative text.  Using the definition that Bruce
> pointed to, “navigated sequentially” means “where navigated in the order
> defined for advancing focus (from one element to the next) using a keyboard
> interface.”
>
>
>
> In my understanding, the word “advancing” means moving forward – not just
> moving from element to element, but moving forward through the page content
> from element to element.   What I’m rejecting is the notion that the order
> defined for advancing focus sets the expectation for what the proper order
> should be when pressing Shift+Tab  to move backwards through the focus
> order of the page.
>
>
>
> Simple as that.
>
>
>
> Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 4:42 PM
> *To:* WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
> Hi Brooks I don’t see your description of this case and the need for a
> meaningful reverse tab order to be in conflict.  But I think the finer
> point that Kathy makes is that both must be meaningful but that doesn’t
> mean they always have to be exactly opposites – although most of the time
> they will.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Newton, Brooks (TR Product) <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 4:17 PM
> *To:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Katherine Eng <
> eng@access-board.gov>; Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Cc:* 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
> *Subject:* RE: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> Here are a couple of scenarios I was thinking of:
>
>
>
> Scenario 1
>
> As a keyboard user, I Tab into the page content from the browser address
> bar and continue Tabbing forward and get half-way through the focus order
> of the page.  At this point, a survey modal pops up, my focus is
> appropriately shifted up to the first actionable item in the modal window.
> Let's say I answer the survey, submit my response, then close the modal to
> return to where I was mid-way through the page before the modal survey
> popped up.  My focus is actively shifted up to and back from the modal
> content so that I don’t fall into the problem outlined in F85: Failure of
> Success Criterion 2.4.3 due to using dialogs or menus that are not adjacent
> to their trigger control in the sequential navigation order
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG21%2FTechniques%2Ffailures%2FF85.html&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C1b1cad679f324926557f08d8041c7b50%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637263867667173399&sdata=P8%2BZutJj3rUNv2htaKL7qqnujx8U8fIaHjGNK13YBIw%3D&reserved=0>
> .   I continue Tabbing forward through all of the main page content, then
> decide to Shift+Tab backwards through the focus order to the top of the
> page.  Because I've already answered the survey on the page, I don't get
> the modal to pop up on my way backward through the focus order.  The focus
> order forward through the content is not the reverse focus order moving
> backwards.
>
>
>
> Scenario 2
>
> The same phenomenon would be true if instead of a survey modal, I got a
> pop up modal warning me of an impending timeout as I'm Tabbing half-way
> through the page focus order moving forward.  When the modal pops up, my
> focus shifts to an "Extend Session" button, which I press.  Now, I'm back
> where I was when the modal popped up and I continue my journey forward
> through the focus order.  Then at some arbitrary point, I decide to move
> backwards by Shift+Tab.  I may not get the time out modal in my way
> backward through the Tab stops on the page.  In this scenario, it’s also
> likely that there's a different focus order moving forward as there was
> when I was moving backward.
>
>
>
> Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:43 PM
> To: Newton, Brooks (TR Product) <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>;
> Katherine Eng <eng@access-board.gov>; Bruce Bailey <
> Bailey@Access-Board.gov>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> >
> Cc: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
> Subject: Re: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
> Brooks, it sounds like you are describing a non-modal dialog rather than a
> modal dialog.
>
>
>
> For a model the navigation would go from the browser chrome to the modal
> and back to the browser and the same in reverse, never getting to the page.
>
>
>
> For a non-modal, I believe it would do the same.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
>
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
>
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
>
>
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBrooks.Newton%40thomsonreuters.com%7Cf70dbbd8802045895ea508d803f7bf50%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637263709888572907&amp;sdata=WA3gn3tbjY2IgkFkRXlSZdqfrniiVaqEMMX1u9NuEcY%3D&amp;reserved=0
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C1b1cad679f324926557f08d8041c7b50%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637263867667173399&sdata=mYaOjctE54HANVLwbLVEUAO%2BANaD3UnFSrH7Zn5kZk8%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On 5/29/20, 12:33 PM, "Newton, Brooks (TR Product)" <
> Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>     -1
>
>
>
>     What about in the event of a survey modal popping up on its own.
> Maybe I'll encounter this modal window content and its associated stops in
> the focus order on the way forward through the page.  But, on the way
> backward through the page using Shift+Tab, I'll probably not have that
> pop-up survey modal in the focus order.
>
>
>
>     Brooks
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: Katherine Eng <eng@access-board.gov>
>
>     Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 11:32 AM
>
>     To: Katherine Eng <eng@access-board.gov>; Bruce Bailey <
> Bailey@Access-Board.gov>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> >
>
>     Cc: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
>
>     Subject: RE: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
>     The first line of my response was removed. It was
>
>
>
>     -1: no
>
>
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: Katherine Eng <eng@access-board.gov>
>
>     Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 12:28 PM
>
>     To: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
>     Cc: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
>
>     Subject: RE: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
>     If forward "navigation sequences affect meaning", going backward would
> mean the meaning would be lost. I wouldn't expect a page with meaningful
> forward focus order to preserve the meaning when navigated backwards.
>
>
>
>     If going forward and backward do not affect meaning, then 2.4.3 would
> not apply.
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>
>
>     Kathy Eng
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
>
>     Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 11:46 AM
>
>     To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
>     Cc: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
>
>     Subject: Question about SC 2.4.3 Focus Order
>
>
>
>     Fellow AG'lers, I am asking that you indulge me in a quick straw
> poll:  Does SC 2.4.3 Focus Order include backwards navigation?
>
>
>
>     +1:  yes, of course
>
>     0:  not sure / maybe
>
>     -1:  no, of course not
>
>
>
>     FWIW, the associated Understanding Doc has a contradiction between the
> third paragraph of Intent and the first example provide.  I will be filling
> an issue (and, hopefully, following up with a pull request) about that, but
> really I first need a sense of the group consensus before that can happen.
>
>
>
>     Follows is 2.4.3 and the relevant affiliated definition.
>
>
>
>     Success Criterion 2.4.3 Focus Order (Level A):  If a Web page can be
> navigated sequentially and the navigation sequences affect meaning or
> operation, focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves
> meaning and operability.
>
>
>
>     navigated sequentially:  navigated in the order defined for advancing
> focus (from one element to the next) using a keyboard interface
>
>
>
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG21%2FUnderstanding%2Ffocus-order.html&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBrooks.Newton%40thomsonreuters.com%7Cf70dbbd8802045895ea508d803f7bf50%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637263709888572907&amp;sdata=FfAq3nt1oRDH4tLOAbe97Exnw2%2FFYT%2BJUX9t3y7%2F5WA%3D&amp;reserved=0
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG21%2FUnderstanding%2Ffocus-order.html&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C1b1cad679f324926557f08d8041c7b50%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637263867667183402&sdata=UcHCFZ9OeqA79oddBIaj4qDelvT8EnnWMpelCnGI0ZE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23focus-order&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBrooks.Newton%40thomsonreuters.com%7Cf70dbbd8802045895ea508d803f7bf50%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637263709888577880&amp;sdata=8EOJX9JEdqzqZMeb9%2BNvDwEoIQdmb%2F8n0rg6iH3DYWw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23focus-order&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C1b1cad679f324926557f08d8041c7b50%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637263867667193390&sdata=OtJJEc4eY04WeJxRGkJUwlvE0ORye%2F7EKllUQABETZk%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-navigated-sequentially&amp;data=02%7C01%7CBrooks.Newton%40thomsonreuters.com%7Cf70dbbd8802045895ea508d803f7bf50%7C62ccb8646a1a4b5d8e1c397dec1a8258%7C0%7C0%7C637263709888577880&amp;sdata=OtxxENGyb6v8fXfetwkC8PH1MhQnPgFv2NMFoyru33Y%3D&amp;reserved=0
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-navigated-sequentially&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C1b1cad679f324926557f08d8041c7b50%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C637263867667193390&sdata=UzAZ4XWW16JMpxH0Yx5Sc3FgsaxpbfgNLrfFhvvxElc%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>