Fixed
Status Update
Comments
me...@adrianroselli.com <me...@adrianroselli.com> #2
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com>
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com>
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #3
I improved this a few months ago, but forgot to close the issue. I think I addressed the concerns raised.
me...@adrianroselli.com <me...@adrianroselli.com> #4
I appreciate the note and corrections. The post, however, does not explain what was changed, when it was changed, nor why it was changed.
ra...@google.com <ra...@google.com> #5
We don't typically publish a changelist for docs or other evergreen content. I ask people to leave an editorial note if they change something that's published as news/blog content as there's an assumption that's time bound, but evergreen content should be kept as fresh as possible.
Description
The article Modify DOM order with tabindex has two problematic items:
The title implies you can re-order the DOM with just the
tabindex
attribute, which is wrong.The following paragraph gives an insufficient warning of the risk:
The term "anti-pattern" does not convey the actual risk. The post later discusses WCAG SC 2.1.2 in the context of the modal, but it fails to mention 2.4.3 Focus Order here. Even the WHATWG HTML spec recommends "caution" with positive values. In years of performing WCAG reviews I still have yet to see a positive
tabindex
value that did not result in a WCAG violation.I came upon this article because a junior dev asked me to explain why this article, why Google was recommending something counter to my own guidance to them.