[A11y][ui5-list]: Checkbox accessible names are not unique and do no match label

Open

#10,666 opened on Jan 25, 2025 5 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty: 3/5
Estimated time: 1-2 days
Newbie friendliness: 42/100

Issue type: Bug
Clarity: Mostly clear
Activity status: Stale
Tech stack: typescript
Domain: accessibility, frontend

Research direction

Start with the UI5-List implementation in the TypeScript repository and reproduce the problem using the linked isolated example with selection mode set to Multiple. Compare the checkbox announcements with the visible labels and review issue 6861 for context. Done means each checkbox has a unique accessible name that matches its physical label.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

ACC Design Pending feature request SAP SF TOPIC P

Bug Description

This issue has previously been brought up in https://github.com/SAP/ui5-webcomponents/issues/6861

For a list that has select mode set to multiple the checkboxes accessible names are not unique and do not match the physical labels on the list. This is in violation of ACC264.3

Affected Component

UI5-List

Expected Behaviour

When using AT like JAWS we expect the checkboxes to be announced with unique accessible names. Additionally, these names should match the visual label used to label the checkbox.

Isolated Example

https://sap.github.io/ui5-webcomponents-react/v2/?path=/docs/data-display-list--docs

Steps to Reproduce

Using JAWS navigate to https://sap.github.io/ui5-webcomponents-react/v2/?path=/docs/data-display-list--docs
set selection mode to "Multiple"
tab to the list items
notice that announcement for the checkboxes lack description and clarity
...

Log Output, Stack Trace or Screenshots

No response

Priority

None

UI5 Web Components Version

latest

Browser

Chrome

Operating System

Mac OS

Additional Context

This issue has already been discussed in https://github.com/SAP/ui5-webcomponents/issues/6861 which has been closed. However, important information has been added to the issue since it has been closed. Hence, I am opening this issue. Please refer to original issue's conversation for additional context which is pertinent to the issue at hand.

Organization