Re: [EXT] RE: My concern about ACT rule "Element in sequential focus order has visible focus"

Same here. If focus is attached to a non-interactive element I presume it was done with purpose and therefore needs to be visible as it is pertinent. For example, after a user enters search criteria in a form, submits the form, then the focus typically goes to the heading announcing the search results. For cognitive considerations it helps to clarify where the priority is.


From: Jon Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 8:33 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXT] RE: My concern about ACT rule "Element in sequential focus order has visible focus"
> I admittedly never made such a distinction, treating it more to mean "any *keyboard-focusable element* has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible", and used 2.4.7 to fail cases where focus lands somewhere, but disappears (even if that "somewhere" was, say, a <div tabindex="0"> or similar.

This is what I have done as well.  When the focus lands somewhere and I can't see it - it raises all sorts of questions in my mind, and I'm forced to hunt all over the screen wondering where it is and what it might be on that is important.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 2:41 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: My concern about ACT rule "Element in sequential focus order has visible focus"

On 10/01/2023 17:42, Detlev Fischer wrote:
[...]
> "2.4.7 Focus Visible: Any *keyboard operable user interface* has a
> mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible."
>
> To me, non interactive elements taking focus due to tabindex="0"
> should be out of scope for the rule since they are not part of the
> user interface (they are not tied to any action).

I admittedly never made such a distinction, treating it more to mean "any *keyboard-focusable element* has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible", and used 2.4.7 to fail cases where focus lands somewhere, but disappears (even if that "somewhere" was, say, a <div tabindex="0"> or similar.

Don't think (though may be wrong) that the original intent behind 2.4.7 was to exclude those situations? Otherwise it'd have likely been documented somewhere in the understanding?

(In an ideal world, I'd propose a normative wording change to 2.4.7, but as it's unlikely to get any traction just now, I'll save myself the
trouble...)

--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke