Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Gunlaug Srtun wrote: I know there are browsers that doesn't make use of these, but how many shortcomings in browsers should we cover up for - if we want them to catch up? Among those browsers the largest percentage is taken up by IE, which is unlikely to change before Longhorn comes out (and even then I doubt it will support LINK element navigation) and the majority (if not all) assistive technology is only designed to work with IE on Windows...so effectively you're wilfully excluding a very large chunk of the users who would benefit the most by being idealistic and blaming it (rightly, sure) on the browser. Users relying on screenreaders really don't have the same choice of simply downloading a better browser, as the assistive technology would not support it... Remember WCAG 1.0 guideline 10: Use interim accessibility solutions so that assistive technologies and older browsers will operate correctly http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility ... although it doesn't specifically mention LINK elements, this falls squarely within the idea/ethos behind the guideline. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ redux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Users relying on screenreaders really don't have the same choice of simply downloading a better browser, as the assistive technology would not support it... Valid point, although it looks more and more like there's a lack of knowledge about what's available, than a lack of choices. Remember WCAG 1.0 guideline 10: Use interim accessibility solutions... Literally, that should be covered by the solution I mentioned earlier in this tread: The only reason for having ordinary links for this most important navigation at all, is that there are so many browsers that can't make use of link-relations. So I put these ordinary most important links at the bottom of my pages, to help out on less powerful browsers. If I am to implement extra links _above_ the main content, I would most likely put them inside a conditional comment for IE/win, since that browser most likely will not support any standard solutions for many, many, years to come. I believe most other browsers have, or will get, the minimum support needed. I'm open for comments on my understanding of, and solutions for, this important issue. Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
russ - maxdesign wrote: There is no right or wrong. There are the two basic arguments. After doing *allot* of reading last night, both here, on other lists, and in other forums such as Accessify Forum (01), I see that there are indeed valid arguments to support both approaches. I thought this might be the case, but wanted to hear from some of you who had already been involved in such a decision and I appreciate the feedback. NAV AFTER * theoretically better for Search Engine Optimisation (as the content is at the top) I was aware that moving relevant content to the top of the page could improve search engine rankings, which is, of course, a plus for the content first option from a business goals perspective. From a user's perspective, having the content first let's them get right into the meat of the page without have to bypass allot of links or second-tier information such as newsletter sign ups or featured partner fluff they may not need at that moment. NAV BEFORE * theoretically better for blind users (it is easier for blind users to navigate with the nav at the top and only read content when they need to) It seems more probable to me that a user would want to read the content on a page first and then use the navigation to move to another section. The first page of a site or the first page the user hits, may be an exception to this, but in general even well sighted users ignore the navigation until we need to use it--it's there, but we don't read through it with every page hit. If that is the most common case, then placing the content first makes good sense. I have, however, read some screen reader users have developed a habit of jumping to the bottom of a page and find it generally easer to work their way up the page. I wonder if they do this to avoid lengthy navigation systems? * theoretically better for text based browsers, and browsers that have little or no css support (so users can navigate pages easily without scroll to nav each time) When I initially approached this issue, I was looking at it from an older browser or CSS disabled perspective. I wanted to make sure our site was at least usable in something like NN 4. I developed the CSS and the markup, so I could keep the navigation first or nearly first in the source order, but position it visually where I wanted. The more I chewed on it the more I became convinced that the real need was to improve usability for visually impaired users. The problems with all these theories are that it all comes down to personal preference. Some people using screen readers or non-css browsers may prefer browsing pages with the nav at the top and others may not. I suppose things like this are a personal preference, but will likely standardize more as we become more consistent with our implementation of accessibility aids. Right now I bet it is tough for visually impaired users to deal with the inconsistencies between sites. IS THERE A SOLUTION? Some people forget that accessibility is in some ways a subset of usability. The key to usability is not based on theories, but testing with real audiences. So, rather that decide on source ordering for your site based on someone's theory, it may be better to look into your target audiences, choose some people that fit the demographic and then go and test some options on these people. It's always good to include people who use older devices or screen readers in the mix if possible. Unfortunately, we don't have any solid demographics to study and no available user base to work with. If I had to make an educated guess, I would stand firmly on assumption that very few blind users will ever be interested in what our site or organization has to offer and this would probably be a mistake on my part. We deal mainly with healthcare dictation and charge capture on mobile devices and our primary audience includes healthcare providers, healthcare administrators, and third-party work flow solution providers. There may, however, be some visually impaired visitors, and this is where the realistic need to address the issue crops up. In the end, though, I don't want to guess at what my audience's needs in this area may be and instead choose to offer as many aids as possible should there be a necessity. It is also a learning experience should I ever need to address content for a visually impaired audience. I am also looking into accessibility forums outside the realm of Web development. I'm trying to find groups of visually impaired Web users who are interested in contributing information and feedback as to how they use the Internet and what they find to be most useful and most impeding. From the people I have watched or spoken to, the most important thing is not source order but SITE CONSISTENCY - meaning that the source order, visual nav position etc remain constant across all pages. This is vital for blind users and people with cognitive impairment, who can be thrown easily by
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Michael Wilson wrote: After doing *allot* of reading last night, both here, on other lists, and in other forums such as Accessify Forum (01), I see that there are indeed valid arguments to support both approaches. Sorry about that... I left off the link for those who might be interested. Accessify Forum: http://www.accessifyforum.com/ -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
I like the second one much better! Very nice. On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:26:46 -0500, Michael Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Over the last year or so, I've been steadily pushing for improved use of standards within one of my organizations sites. I've moved the site away away from table based layouts and implemented CSS for presentation. The initial transition (01) was an improvement; however, there are still issues with font size and zoom, navigation, headings, forms, and the general semantics of the markup that we intend to address. One of the issues I wanted to address first was source order versus screen arrangement of the various pieces of content. In the current version, the content is last in the lineup and I don't feel that is the best option. I've worked things out to the point (02) that I can place the navigation either first (horizontal example after any promo stuff) or after the main content (vertical example at the top of the side-bar). My question at this point is: which is a better approach--nav first with a skip to content link or nav last with a skip to nav link? I'm inclined to think putting the nav last or at least after the main content is better for screen readers and such as well as for SEO, but I don't have any solid research to back up that opinion. Placing the nav in the sidebar also allows for more font scaling than the horizontal option--it won't have fly out menus, but I'd rather have a home page for each main section anyway. So what do you guys think? 01: http://www.iqmax.com/ 02: http://www.iqmax.com/iqmaxcss/ -- Best regards, Michael Wilson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Anthony Timberlake Owner - StaticHost Internet Services http://www.statichost.co.uk http://www.spikeradio.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
One of the issues I wanted to address first was source order versus screen arrangement of the various pieces of content. In the current So what do you guys think? There is no right or wrong. There are the two basic arguments. NAV BEFORE * theoretically better for Search Engine Optimisation (as the content is at the top) NAV AFTER * theoretically better for blind users (it is easier for blind users to navigate with the nav at the top and only read content when they need to) * theoretically better for text based browsers, and browsers that have little or no css support (so users can navigate pages easily without scroll to nav each time) The problems with all these theories are that it all comes down to personal preference. Some people using screen readers or non-css browsers may prefer browsing pages with the nav at the top and others may not. IS THERE A SOLUTION? Some people forget that accessibility is in some ways a subset of usability. The key to usability is not based on theories, but testing with real audiences. So, rather that decide on source ordering for your site based on someone's theory, it may be better to look into your target audiences, choose some people that fit the demographic and then go and test some options on these people. It's always good to include people who use older devices or screen readers in the mix if possible. From the people I have watched or spoken to, the most important thing is not source order but SITE CONSISTENCY - meaning that the source order, visual nav position etc remain constant across all pages. This is vital for blind users and people with cognitive impairment, who can be thrown easily by changing systems on different pages. Bottom line - If people really want to use your site to access content, they will learn how your pages work - as long as the pages are logical and consistent. Something that may help your users is content chunking and content labelling. I have found it to be invaluable for users of text browsers, older browsers and screen readers. The advantage with this method is that old browsers and screen readers will receive the content broken into chunks that are clearly labelled with meaningful headings, so the page content is less confusing. Some guides, if interested: * provide visible skip links that allow users to jump to the content (if nav first) or nav (if content first). The wording for skip links has been hotly debated on this list before, so look through WSG mail archives for the best fit for you. * Break the page into chunks of content - page heading, content, main nav, secondary nav, news etc (not thinking about presentation at all at this stage) * separate these chunks with descriptive headings (using proper h1, h2, h3.. elements) to explain their purpose - h2Site sections/h2, h2Footer information/h2, etc... (and I'm sure these wordings could be hotly debated too). * if these descriptive headings do not fit within the design of your site, they can be hidden from full-css supporting browsers using css. 2cents Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Russ, isn't it NAV AFTER that is better for SEO, as the content is at the top -- this leads to better keyword density, likliness of headings being found etc?. Terrence Wood. russ - maxdesign wrote: NAV BEFORE * theoretically better for Search Engine Optimisation (as the content is at the top) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Russ, isn't it NAV AFTER that is better for SEO, as the content is at Ooppps... Completely correct. The two headings should be reversed... NAV AFTER * theoretically better for Search Engine Optimisation (as the content is at the top) NAV BEFORE * theoretically better for blind users (it is easier for blind users to navigate with the nav at the top and only read content when they need to) * theoretically better for text based browsers, and browsers that have little or no css support (so users can navigate pages easily without scroll to nav each time) Russ = Idiot! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Michael Wilson wrote: My question at this point is: which is a better approach--nav first with a skip to content link or nav last with a skip to nav link? I'm inclined to think putting the nav last or at least after the main content is better for screen readers and such as well as for SEO, but I don't have any solid research to back up that opinion. I'll go for content first - nav later/last. This type of source-ordering is IMO giving the best access to the main content (which I think is what makes a web page worth visiting), when all the nice styling is gone. I base this on feedback from visitors who can't see my nice styling at all. (Maybe my designs are not worth all that much, as I more and more tend to like my own pages unstyled. :-) ) I don't use header-constructs. All that's needed at the top of a page is some controlled space, where I can position informative and decorative details from somewhere else. This space disappears completely when it isn't needed. The first element in my latest pages is a h1 - h2 construct, followed by the main content. I sign off this main content part before any of the less important stuff begins - including navigation. Some navigation may end up in a side-column, and some in the footer. This all depends on what I think makes most sense in a styled/unstyled page. I may also reverse the page to a degree, so some navigation is repositioned to the very top, from the bottom of the source-code. Maybe a skip to nav is preferable, but all reports says that links are easy to find by simple link-tabbing. Lynx tab links just fine, but I have not tested what all other alternative browsing-options do. Using Lynx, I also add in link-relations for navigation. That means the most important navigation ends up at the same place in the same browser no matter what, so visitors will always know where to find it. The only reason for having ordinary links for this most important navigation at all, is that there are so many browsers that can't make use of link-relations. So I put these ordinary most important links at the bottom of my pages, to help out on less powerful browsers. So what do you guys think? 01: http://www.iqmax.com/ 02: http://www.iqmax.com/iqmaxcss/ Your second is much better than the first, but source-ordering can be taken much further. I'm not quite done with my own layouts yet (and will probably never be) but I have come to the conclusion that most visual designs can be realized - independent of the source-code order. Take this page: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_01_02.html ... to http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html ... and see that it is very much in line with your content first approach. I think that's the way to go... regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
One thing highlighted at an accessibility site design awards ceremony I recently attended was the wish for developers to include a site map link at the head jump links on all pages so non-sighted users could immediately jump to the page and get a feel for site relevance to search topic, especially when hitting a site - often for the first time - when Googling. This was requested as a key development feature by the head of the British National Blind Library. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.org -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/05 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Nav Before or After Main Content
Mike Pepper wrote: One thing highlighted at an accessibility site design awards ceremony I recently attended was the wish for developers to include a site map link at the head jump links on all pages so non-sighted users could immediately jump to the page and get a feel for site relevance to search topic, especially when hitting a site - often for the first time - when Googling. This is similar to responses I've got about how a group of visitors to my site like to surf web sites - by using a separate site map. This was requested as a key development feature by the head of the British National Blind Library. Wouldn't this request be met by providing link-relations like: link rel=home href=../index.html / link rel=contents href=maincontent.html / ... on all pages? ref: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/use-links http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/links.html#h-12.3 I know there are browsers that doesn't make use of these, but how many shortcomings in browsers should we cover up for - if we want them to catch up? Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
