Section 508 and reading order
My question pertains to reading order on a page. I am designing a form for a client, and the form has 2 buttons (Save and Cancel). These buttons are styled for the sighted user to align to the right, below the form, so that they read left-to-right: "Cancel" and then "Save". However, in the source, and in tabbing order, Save comes before Cancel. From a usability perspective, this is my desired behavior, I put more emphasis on the "Save" and want its tabbing order before "Cancel" even if it's to the right on the page. My argument was that using the stylesheet, the button is emphasized for the mouse user to click on, it's before the Cancel for the keyboard user, and is read before Cancel for the non-visual user. Just because one button appears to the left of the other using the style-sheet, am I breaking some section-508 rule, or is my logic justified based on the reading order of the source code? (right to left readers of this forum need not respond 
Share: 
I'd tend to agree that the save button is the primary action, with cancel /reset etc being a secondary action.
not too familiar with section 508 so can't comment.
Share:
You are not breaking a 508 standard. Section 508 doesn't really touch on tab order although you will find that because of the vagueness of 508 many people will apply their own interpretation of those standards.
If your client is a Federal employee then they are most likely basing their feedback to you from their Section 508 Office that oversees these types of matters. While these groups are working to make things better for everyone they have a tendency to be very rigid in their interpretations. Yours is a primary example.
Your purpose in placing the Save button first makes total sense from a usability perspective. One could also make the argument that a non-visual user may not realize there is a Cancel button if the Save button is presented first. Thereby 'forcing' the user to Save the form or navigate away from the form in some other non-standard means. It may sound silly, but there are those who are new to PCs and new to Assitive Technologies. So it is not that far fetched.
Most likely the concern is that 'visually' the tab order jumps from right to left on those buttons. The people who are calling it a 508 issue are likely basing their feedback only on that fact alone. As you will see below in the reference to WCAG 2.0 this is not an absolute reason to call it an issue.
Ultimately if your client doesn't like your implementation and does not accept your reasoning for arranging the tab order this way, you need to change it to make them happy.
If you want to try to reason with your client more you can reference the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. While 508 itself does not directly speak on tab order WCAG 2.0 does include guidelines around this. Ultimately the 508 refresh, when released, will follow similar guidelines as WCAG 2.0.
Technique H4 is a good place to start. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H4
That will reference Success Criterion 2.4.3. Looking at the Understanding SC 2.4.3 pages it says:
- The focus order may not be identical to the programmatically determined reading order (see Success Criterion 1.3.2) as long as the user can still understand and operate the Web page. Since there may be several possible logical reading orders for the content, the focus order may match any of them. However, when the order of a particular presentation differs from the programmatically determined reading order, users of one of these presentations may find it difficult to understand or operate the Web page. Authors should carefully consider all these users as they design their Web pages.
For example, a screen reader user interacts with the programmatically determined reading order, while a sighted keyboard user interacts with the visual presentation of the Web page. Care should be taken so that the focus order makes sense to both of these sets of users and does not appear to either of them to jump around randomly.
So because the buttons are right next to each other and it is not a major jump you could argue your point if you wish based on the content for SC 2.4.3. My suggestion is to do it as your client wants. He is the one who will be paying you for your work.
I hope that helps.
Share:
Good find, StinkyG.
Dan, what you've done actually seems ideal for all users apart from one user group: sighted keyboard users. It visually reverses the natural tabbing order, which is a bit weird.
With that said, as others stated, the buttons are right next to each other. Only 2 buttons are affected; it's not like a whole toolbar or navigation menu is the wrong way around.
A user might complain that they lost all their information because these buttons were the wrong way around. That might trigger a need to make a reasonable adjustment to this form, so the tabbing order does follow visual order.
But then that changes source order, which as you point out puts a tertiary button before a primary button. That might well trip up more users than the initial solution!
So on balance I think it's worth raising and documenting it as a compromise but that alone should not fail an accessibility audit. User testing would help to answer this question.
Share: