Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG]: Reported in Slack - Potential mis-assignment of error to 2.4.3 Focus Order rather than 2.1.1 Keyboard #1834

Closed
maryjom opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 11 comments · Fixed by #1899
Assignees
Labels
Bug Something isn't working priority-3 (low) Ready for QA T61 user-reported Issues identified outside of the core team

Comments

@maryjom
Copy link
Contributor

maryjom commented Feb 8, 2024

Project

Checker engine - rule mappings

Browser

All

Operating system

All

Description

Don't know the project, browser, or OS as this is an issue based on Slack question regarding a particular rule's error message and help.

Rules affected:

widget_tabbable_exists
widget_tabbable_single

It appears that the rule may be citing an incorrect WCAG success criterion for the particular message it provides (a mismatch). The following is my Slack message which contains a link to the original user's question:

In looking at this question posed in #accessibility-at-ibm, I'm wondering why this error is being reported against 2.4.3 Focus Order rather than 2.1.1 Keyboard. Seems if a tablist doesn't have an element in the tab order at all, it should have one and it would fail 2.1.1 Keyboard. Then you'd have to manually check that the tab/focus order is correct within the tablist for 2.4.3.

Steps to reproduce

Contact the originator of the question in the Slack #accessibility-at-ibm channel to see if they can provide code for you to reproduce the error.

or simply:

  1. Run the test cases for the rules and check the mapping
  2. Review the mapping in the Checker rule set for the rules mapped to 2.1.1 and 2..4.3. The mapping is also available in the Actions -> Artifacts: Rule listing (generate are runtime)
@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

Current mapping:

2.4.3 Focus Order (A)

If content can be navigated sequentially and the navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability.

@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

@MHoov MHoov added the user-reported Issues identified outside of the core team label Feb 12, 2024
@shunguoy shunguoy added the T61 label Feb 12, 2024
@MHoov MHoov added the Bug Something isn't working label Feb 12, 2024
@shunguoy
Copy link
Contributor

shunguoy commented Feb 12, 2024

Triage: this mapping is related to KCM for sequential navigation of the browser extension.
widget_tabbable_single: map to 2.4.3 and 2.1.1
widget_tabbable_exists: map to just 2.1.1

Make sure both the code and help are changed accordingly.

@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

philljenkins commented Feb 12, 2024

  1. Add the following "toolkit testing" reference to the widget_tabbable_single help:
    Check tab or navigation order
    Maintaining user's point of regard

2. Update the style & text of the group message of aria_keyboard_handler_exists: Interactive WAI_ ARIA UI components must provide keyboard access

3. Update help for aria_keyboard_handler_exists by replacing onkeydown and onkeypress with arrow keys

@philljenkins philljenkins self-assigned this Feb 14, 2024
@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

prioritize lowest in release

@marcjohlic
Copy link
Member

marcjohlic commented Feb 14, 2024

This is a P3 issue that we discussed adding to the current R6.1 Release. Tackle this one AFTER scheduled Release items are completed. We don't want this to impede any of the Release items.

@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

Rescheduling this to next sprint to continue working on AccessU outline

@shunguoy
Copy link
Contributor

shunguoy commented Apr 22, 2024

@shunguoy
Copy link
Contributor

PR: #1899

@shunguoy
Copy link
Contributor

PR: #1899

philljenkins added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 24, 2024
@philljenkins
Copy link
Contributor

Changes made to mapping and help "Why is this important" and "About this requirement" references

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug Something isn't working priority-3 (low) Ready for QA T61 user-reported Issues identified outside of the core team
Projects
None yet
5 participants