Re: Sortable Table Focus Order

 Very well stated, Adam. Peter and Madeleine, also great points.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 7:05 PM Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Yes, there is a difference, but only because industry has reduced the
> utility of WCAG to an auditing tool whose affect usually comes much too
> late in a product lifecycle.
>
>
>
> The ‘guidelines’ aspect of WCAG is now long neglected with interests
> captured almost entirely by ‘compliance audits’
>
>
>
> It does fail 2.4.3 and it is an accessibility barrier in my view.
>
>
>
> I have argued for such a change many, many times before successfully with
> developers who can see that such behaviour is an accessibility barrier for
> certain users just like the other examples I cited below.
>
>
>
> That cost and inconvenience are posed as immutable obstacles to meeting
> the needs of people with disability demonstrates how far we still have to
> go.
>
>
>
> And, before you cry ‘it’s the reality’ or other such pragma, it doesn’t
> have to be the way that it is.
>
>
>
> About this, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 4, 2024 9:48 AM
> *To:* Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>; 'P A F' <pafalways@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Juliette McShane Alexandria' <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>;
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sortable Table Focus Order
>
>
>
> There’s a difference between what you would recommend before anything has
> been built, compared with something that already exists. Before this page
> was built, you would argue very strongly to use a button to re-order the
> table contents without a page reload.
>
>
>
> But given that it exists and there’s a cost to changing it, you need to
> make a stronger case for doing so. It doesn’t violate any WCAG success
> criteria and there’s no evidence it’s any sort of accessibility barrier.
> It’s just an odd way to implement the feature.
>
>
>
> The sort control is a link, so no one should be surprised it loads a new
> page. That’s what the vast majority of links do.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2024 11:20 PM
> *To:* Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>; 'P A F' <
> pafalways@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'Juliette McShane Alexandria' <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>;
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sortable Table Focus Order
>
>
>
> That’s why the sort control should programmatically be  a button because
> it performs an action rather than navigates.
>
>
>
> not all hyperlinks cause or should cause a reload (e.g., skip to or back
> to top).
>
>
>
> the reload behaviour when activating a sort control is exactly what is NOT
> expected regardless of how it is implemented.
>
>
>
> It is the operational efficiency of the view that is not preserved when
> focus becomes indeterminate/returned to the document … just like not
> managing focus when a dialog is displayed or when items are removed from a
> list etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2024 7:10 PM
> *To:* P A F <pafalways@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>;
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Sortable Table Focus Order
>
>
>
> SC 2.4.3 doesn’t apply if the page reloads. The behaviour is exactly what
> you would expect after operating a link. It’s not as good as updating the
> table without reloading the page, but it’s an inconvenience rather than a
> blocker and it sounds pretty insignificant if a user is only likely to
> change the sort order once or twice. Most websites have got much worse
> accessibility issues than this.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* P A F <pafalways@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2024 9:03 AM
> *To:* Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
> *Cc:* Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>;
> w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Sortable Table Focus Order
>
>
>
> The interactive element is a link. So, I did not speak of 3.2.2. The
> closest SC I thought applied was 2.4.3. I was looking at the operability
> part of that SC. Could it be OK in terms of WCAG but not great for the user?
>
>
>
> P A F
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:22 AM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> SC 3.2.2, On Input only applies when changing the setting of a user
> interface component. It does not apply when buttons or links are operated.
>
>
>
> The initial post does not say what the “interactive sort element” is. If
> it’s a button in each column header, SC 3.3.2 will not apply. If it’s a
> combobox or set of radio buttons, SC 3.3.2 would apply if the page reload
> is caused by a change in the setting. It would not apply if the new setting
> is applied by operating a button.
>
>
>
> Steve Green
>
> Managing Director
>
> Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 2, 2024 5:29 PM
> *To:* P A F <pafalways@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Sortable Table Focus Order
>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
>
>
> That sounds like an issue under 3.2.2, On Input
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/on-input.html>. What you are
> describing is considered a 'change of context
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/on-input.html#dfn-changes-of-context>'.
> The solutions here are to adjust the behavior of the component so it does
> not reload the page or to provide a warning before users encounter the
> controls that interacting with them will refresh the page.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Juliette
>
> On 4/2/2024 9:26:10 AM, P A F <pafalways@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I'm using a sortable table. If I activate an interactive sort element, the
> webpage refreshes and my focus is at the beginning of the webpage. I'll
> need to renavigate the content I've seen. Does it go against 2.4.3 Focus
> Order? Is meaning and operability preserved?
>
>
>
> P A F
>
> [image: eff97659-8320-4fef-9b8f-00bd195943da]
>
>