Skip to content

Add browser requirements that support synthetic activation by AT#2806

Open
mcking65 wants to merge 1 commit into
secondary-actionsfrom
secondary-actions-updates
Open

Add browser requirements that support synthetic activation by AT#2806
mcking65 wants to merge 1 commit into
secondary-actionsfrom
secondary-actions-updates

Conversation

@mcking65
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mcking65 mcking65 commented Jun 3, 2026

Closes #2691

Note: Base branch is not main; it is the compare branch for #1805 (secondary-actions).

  • Require browsers to use author-provided names
  • Add browser requirement about sequencing actions
  • Add browser requirement to prevent default focus-transfer behavior when an action is synthetically activated by an AT

@spectranaut
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Discussed in today's ARIA meeting: https://www.w3.org/2026/06/04-aria-minutes.html#4500

Comment thread index.html
<li>User Agents SHOULD use the accessible names of elements referenced by <code>aria-actions</code> to determine the names of actions that are exposed in a platform accessibility API.</li>
<li>User Agents MUST use the accessible names of elements referenced by <code>aria-actions</code> to determine the names of actions that are exposed in a platform accessibility API.</li>
<li>User Agents MUST expose actions in the order that references are listed.</li>
<li>User Agents MUST expose an activation path to assistive technologies that performs the activation behavior of an element referenced by aria-actions without executing the default focus-transfer behavior associated with pointer activation.</li>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The big concern here is AT detection. On one hand, yes, there are many ways to detect AT if you are determined to do it. On the other hand, the "Don’t reveal that assistive technologies are being used" web platform design principle makes it incumbent on us to avoid "obvious" exposure. And yet we have a pretty significant user experience issue here, so we're somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place.

I guess the question is whether bouncing focus back to the originating element is ultimately any better and whether it causes undesirable AT behaviour that is difficult or impossible for ATs to work around. Alternatively, perhaps browsers could move the focus there and back, but avoid firing accessibility focus events while that's happening. I need to think on how that could be implemented so I can try it out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

aria-actions: handling focus when actions are synthetically triggered

3 participants