Update focus order for search result page #209
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this do?
Why are we doing this? (with JIRA link)
Jira: https://collectionspace.atlassian.net/browse/DRYD-1309
This issue came about from the wcag audit with respect to the logical ordering of elements when tabbing through the page. According to the audit the expected behavior is for the tab input to go through the search result table first, then navigate to the sidebar. The toggle bar for the sidebar was created before the sidebar which caused it to be tabbed to before the search result table, which is out of order according to the audit.
How should this be tested? Do these changes have associated tests?
Dependencies for merging? Releasing to production?
These changes also need to be made for the record page before we can close the Jira, as the issue exists on both pages. I'll add a comment on the ticket as well so that it's notated there.
In addition I believe these changes will be applicable to DRYD-1295 as well because it updates the DOM to be ordered correctly. I still need to download NVDA and test screen reading.
Has the application documentation been updated for these changes?
No
Did someone actually run this code to verify it works?
@mikejritter tested locally