Steve Green wrote:
> John,
>
> I would agree that there is little or no value in providing a heading
> for a single list. However, we often work on sites that have
> thousands of pages, that have at least two levels of navigation menus
> and sometimes three. There are often other lists at the top of the
> page, such as to the Sitemap, A-Z List, Accessibility Options etc.
Steve, this is a fair point, but are they separate lists, or nested lists?
(The latter may not need a heading either). No matter, your point is valid.
The key rebuttal that I am hearing from you however is that _in some
instances_ providing a heading to a navigational list may be of use - which
is far different than saying that *all navigational lists must have
headings* (which, BTW, the FAE alludes to). And so as a "Best Practice" we
need to be careful what we say, how we say it, and when it may or may not be
applicable. I don't want to seem like I'm picking a fight <grin> (I'm not),
but I feel that this is very important to underscore.
>
> These lists are usually styled visually so it is obvious what each
> list is, but it can be difficult to differentiate between all these
> lists when they are linearised in a non-CSS user agent such as Lynx,
> Webbie or some mobile devices. Rather than search for a specific link
> (assuming you know what you are looking for), it is easier to scan
> the page for headings, which most of these user agents style
> differently from the list items.
Again, no disagreement. I might comment though that there does come a time
when there may be too many navigational links on one page - I have used this
argument in the past regarding fly-out or drop-down menus. 163
"navigational" links on any page is too many, headers or not (IMHO).
>
> I have to say that my opinion is based mostly on my experience of
> testing with mobile devices and Lynx rather than testing with other
> users, although some screen reader users have commented positively on
> the provision of these headings.
Steve, I was not for one minute questioning your authority to have an
informed opinion - far from it (we've been bumping into each other on these
lists for some time now). I guess all I am saying is that from a
"standards" perspective (this *is* the Web Standards Group list), we need to
be careful about making blanket statements that are based as much on opinion
as factual data. We lack this hard data today (AFAIK), but I for one would
welcome a conclusive study.
> When a screen reader user is
> navigating within a page, they benefit from having landmarks like
> this. I have had no adverse comments on the hidden headings, but they
> would not have been visible to most of the users we have tested with.
This is very similar to the argument of whether or not a "Skip to
Content"/"Skip Nav" link should be seen or hidden on a page. I too use Lynx
for testing and demonstration purposes; I have also worked with daily AT
users, and I agree that logically structured pages are the best way to serve
these user-groups. Again however, I must stress that we need to be careful
about making blanket statements about any user-group, and their needs or
what is "best for them". That we need guidance and Best Practices for
developing content that "works" for all user groups, there is no argument,
but we need to be very careful about generalized statements, especially when
they are also partially based on opinion.
>
> I really don't understand your objection and certainly don't see it
> as 'segregation'. We do all kinds of things to benefit specific user
> groups, and this is just another.
Well... I simply feel that if you are going to be using headers to group
navigational blocks, they should probably also be "viewed" on screen by all
users - if they are of use to blind users, and Lynx users, and mobile device
users... Surely they will also be of use to older users, users with
cognitive disabilities, etc., etc. In other words, if you are providing
these headings, why are you "excluding" one group? (even if that group is
the majority?) I of course suspect I already know the answer (usually it's
because it disrupts the visual design), but if it's good for one, why not
all? I am from the Universal Design camp BTW <grin>.
Cheers!
JF
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
