Survey amendments iframe-not-focusable-has-no-interactive-content-akn7bn

[kherr-a11y]

Removed the reference to tabindex="-`" from Assumptions, per ACT meeting survey discussion.
Removed second sentence from Expectation, per ACT meeting survey discussion
Added new pass example where iframe is hidden (not visible)

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[kherr-a11y]

@tbostic32 can you give this a first review?

[tbostic32]

Are you changing to non-focusable because its more clear or is there a scenario that the negative tab-index doesn't catch? Asking because I do somewhat like how specific the negative tab-index is.

Also, you will probably need to include a reference to focusable here. You should be able to add it by doing [focusable][]

[tbostic32]

You will probably also need to change the description of the rule to mirror this.

[Jym77]

This is also going to explode violently with the change suggested to "focusable" by @carlosapaduarte in #1444 which explicitly says that element with negative tabindex are "focusable".

We could use "is not part of sequential focus navigation" (to replace negative tabindex)… but… Step 2 of the sequential navigation search algorithm explicitly skips over browsing context containers (i.e. iframe, mostly).

[HelenBurge]

Agree with Trevor's feedback but nothing to add myself

[Jym77]

This is also going to explode violently with the change suggested to "focusable" by @carlosapaduarte in #1444 which explicitly says that element with negative tabindex are "focusable".

We could use "is not part of sequential focus navigation" (to replace negative tabindex)… but… Step 2 of the sequential navigation search algorithm explicitly skips over browsing context containers (i.e. iframe, mostly).

[Jym77]

I'm also not sure about adding "that has focusable content" in the Applicability. Skipping over the (lack of) definition of "has", this means that most Passed Example (e.g. Passed Example 1) are now Inapplicable, since the iframe has no focusable content 🤔

As now working on it