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

Add 2.1.3 to iframe focusable rule #2229

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

WilcoFiers
Copy link
Member

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers commented Dec 5, 2024

Closes #2026

  • This added 2.1.3 Keyboard (No Exceptiosn) (AAA) to this rule.
  • This seemed slightly better to me.

IMPORTANT: This is going to cause implementors to be inconsistent. That's why I'm using a 2 week review. It is incorrect for this rule not to fail 2.1.3 for the same reason that Scrollable content can be reached with sequential focus navigation fails 2.1.3. The only difference between 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 is an exception for path based input. That's not the case for this iframes or scrollable regions.

Need for Call for Review: 2 weeks


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.

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers marked this pull request as ready for review December 5, 2024 11:06
@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers changed the title Editorial update iframe focusable Add 2.1.3 to iframe focusable rule Dec 5, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@Jym77 Jym77 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't that a case where Scenario 1 (the rule is not as strict as a requirement) of Secondary requirements applies?

That is, anything that fails 2.1.1 also automatically fails 2.1.3, similarly to the 1.4.3/1.4.6 situation.

Additionally, 2.1.3 is a AAA criterion, so having this as a primary requirements means that tools that only check for level AA will never be able to have a consistent implementation of the rule (which was pretty much what led us to introduce secondary requirements for the 1.4.3/1.4.6 or 2.4.6/2.4.9 cases: initial PR, linking to more issues in the wcag-act-rules repo)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants