Rewrite SCR37 as an HTML technique

[fstrr]

• ARIA APG covers non-HTML modal dialogs, so we don’t need to repeat all of that content here.
• SCR37 is very out of date
• HTML dialog element has cross-browser support now
• SCR37 and working example deleted.
• note: I couldn’t find any HTML Techniques working examples, do didn’t create one for this.

Here's a githack preview of the page

[fstrr]

Rawgit preview if that's useful.

[scottaohara]

thank you @fstrr !

[scottaohara]

my previous approving review still stands. My suggeted edits here are largely editoral nits / clarifying things further and swapping out some language to allude to other conepts - such as 'inert', or current work happening to implement "invokers" into HTML - setting up vocabulary parity for when that concept/method becomes available.

[alastc]

Bring the email conversation to github, Wilco wrote:

I'm happy with this as an advisory technique. I think as a sufficient technique this is confusing. The part of SC37 that made it directly relevant to SC 2.4.3 was test 3 "Check that, once opened, the dialog is next in the tab order.". In the rewrite, that part was replaced with a test that is no longer about the order in which elements are in sequential focus navigation. "When the dialog is opened, check that focus is placed inside it.".
I support that change. That is a better way to do this, but it removed the only thing in SC37 that was about the order in which elements appear when a user navigates the page with tab focus.

I replied:

If I understand your perspective, is it that: The opening of the model does not impact the focus order, so it is orthogonal to the SC?

I think others (including me) have a slightly wider interpretation. The SC doesn’t say the tab-order, it’s about the focus order.

If you open a dialogue, the best way to preserve meaning and operability is to do what the new technique says (i.e. move the focus to the dialog).

It can apply when you use a button which moves the focus, not just tab order. In that way dynamic interfaces can be covered.

As a sufficient technique it isn’t the only way to do it, you could use content-ordering rather than focus management, but this is a way to meet it.

@WilcoFiers - Does that resolve things, or should we discuss this on a call?

[mbgower]

@WilcoFiers making sure you saw the comment above

[WilcoFiers]

@mbgower If the groups thinks this is the best way to go I can live with it. I would caution that it seems to me most people visiting these pages don't know the difference between normative and informative, and don't know that there are things these documents say need to be tested / or don't allow in the tests, that mismatch the normative text.

In this particular example, the previous technique allowed the modal to be the next focusable element, whereas the updated one requires focus to be moved into/onto the modal. I think that matters. Similarly it seems to me that if the focus didn't move back to the original trigger, but to the element after the trigger that would be an acceptable way to build a modal.

[mbgower]

Thanks @WilcoFiers.

I would caution that it seems to me most people visiting these pages don't know the difference between normative and informative, and don't know that there are things these documents say need to be tested / or don't allow in the tests, that mismatch the normative text.

That seems like an overall concern with the construction of sufficient techniques in WCAG 2, since none of them are normative, nor are they prescriptive (except to the degree that if an author meets the test, they can be confident they have used a technique the WG felt met the requirement). I've always thought of the sufficient techniques as in-the-moment attempts to document best practices. As such, it makes sense that some will need tweaking or even fall out of relevance or favour over the years. But this sounds like a consideration to bring forward to 3.0 discussions!

In this particular example, the previous technique allowed the modal to be the next focusable element, whereas the updated one requires focus to be moved into/onto the modal. I think that matters. Similarly it seems to me that if the focus didn't move back to the original trigger, but to the element after the trigger that would be an acceptable way to build a modal.

As you know, the existing SCR37 never represented the only way to create a dialog, merely one sufficient way. However, I think most people would agree that its test for acceptable is an inferior user experience to that provided in the new technique, which closely matches that in the ARIA Authoring Practices dialog pattern and of course is predominantly the default behaviour built into HTML5.

I think the general feeling was that since we have a better native behaviour, it makes sense to keep the sufficient technique focused on that, rather than encouraging authors to make custom dialogs.

[alastc]

On the topic, we could have simply added a technique, and kept the old one. However, the feeling was that the old one, whilst passing, wasn't really a good practice to suggest these days.

Off topic, I know we've looked at this before (quite a long time ago), but perhaps (in a separate issue) we should tweak the standard text above techniques?

Current:

Each numbered item in this section represents a technique or combination of techniques that the WCAG Working Group deems sufficient for meeting this Success Criterion. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. For information on using other techniques, see Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria, particularly the "Other Techniques" section.

Suggestion (change in bold):

Each numbered item in this section represents a technique or combination of techniques that the WCAG Working Group deems sufficient for meeting this Success Criterion. The technique may go beyond the minimum requirement of the criterion. There may other ways of meeting the criterion not covered by techniques. For information on using other techniques, see Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria, particularly the "Other Techniques" section.

If that seems reasonable (e.g. thumbs up) I'll open something up separately.