Re: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Russ Weakley r...@maxdesign.com.au wrote: In order to comply with Success Criterion 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks – you must provide a mechanism to “bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages. (Level A) One of the “sufficient techniques” recommended by the W3C for bypassing blocks is the use of skip links. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G1.html Aria Landmarks are great for some user types and well supported by JAWS, NVDA, OSX VoiceOver (reasonably well supported by WindowEyes). However, these landmark roles do not help those who may not use a mouse for a variety of reasons (such as some sort of motor skill issue etc). So, using a combination of skip links and landmarks may be better. A lot of mixed opinions on skip links but some general principles 1. include skip links if at all possible 2. keep them simple - like a simple skip to content only 3. if possible make them visible 4. if you cannot make them visible, make them focus/active visible: http://maxdesign.com.au/jobs/example-skip/03.htm Be aware that some browsers don't play well with skip links. Thanks Russ On 05/06/2012, at 2:49 PM, Blumer, Luke wrote: Hi All, We are currently in the process of redesigning our website and are looking into the Skip to functionality. We are currently considering using: • Skip to Search • Skip to Primary Navigation • Skip to Secondary Navigation • Skip to Main Content • Skip to Sitemap We are wondering if there is any information on best practice for the Skip to function and whether there is a generally acceptable limit as to how many Skip to links should be used? We are also wondering whether we should be considering other ways for users to navigate around our pages such as AccessKey http://validator.w3.org/accesskeys.html and whether this technique should be used to reduce the number of Skip to links we have listed above? Is there any native browser functionality that performs any of these functions that we should account for? Thankyou in advance for any advice. Regards, Luke Blumer Web Project Officer | Corporate Relations Australian Taxation Office Phone: 02 6216 2970 ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 2869 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] RE: WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Five 'skip' links is definitely too many and I would say that three is the absolute maximum. During user testing we often get adverse comments if there are more than two. A single 'skip to content' link should be sufficient if the search form and sitemap link are at the top of the page (where people expect them), followed by the navigation then the content. It has been widely accepted in the accessibility community the many years, that accesskeys should not be used because every accesskey conflicts with an accesskey in one or more widely used application or assistive technology. As others have said, not all browsers work correctly with 'skip' links, in particular Safari, Chrome and Opera. It's unbelievable that these bugs have not been fixed after so many years, but that's the case. In my view, most people who benefit from the use of 'skip' links are not likely to be using these browsers. I believe that Opera has the native ability to jump to headings, so that would provide a very similar capability, especially if you add hidden headings for the navigation. I don't believe any other browsers have any such features yet. Steve Green Managing Director Test Partners Ltd From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [li...@webstandardsgroup.org] on behalf of Blumer, Luke [luke.blu...@ato.gov.au] Sent: 05 June 2012 05:49 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Hi All, We are currently in the process of redesigning our website and are looking into the Skip to functionality. We are currently considering using: * Skip to Search * Skip to Primary Navigation * Skip to Secondary Navigation * Skip to Main Content * Skip to Sitemap We are wondering if there is any information on best practice for the Skip to function and whether there is a generally acceptable limit as to how many Skip to links should be used? We are also wondering whether we should be considering other ways for users to navigate around our pages such as AccessKey http://validator.w3.org/accesskeys.html and whether this technique should be used to reduce the number of Skip to links we have listed above? Is there any native browser functionality that performs any of these functions that we should account for? Thankyou in advance for any advice. Regards, Luke Blumer Web Project Officer | Corporate Relations Australian Taxation Office Phone: 02 6216 2970 ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 2869 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Fwd: Invitation to present at ATIA Orlando (Jan, 2013)
Dear Colleagues: ATIA is holding the Call for Presentations until June 22, 2012 to enable speakers to submit abstracts for the 2013 Orlando conferencehttp://atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=4295 . As Strand Advisor for the Higher Education strand, I would like to extend a personal invitation for you to consider submitting one or two abstracts for this important conference on assistive technology. *What type of sessions are within the scope of the Higher Education strand?* The Higher Education Strand is focused on student accommodations and campus accessibility, with a particular focus on curriculum access and access to campus information and information systems. Presentations on accessible web, media, Universal Design and ebooks are also welcome submissions to this strand. Additional discounts may be available for individuals who speak at both the ATIA-Orlando event (2013) and theAccessing Higher Ground conferencehttp://www.colorado.edu/ATconference/ (Nov. 2012). Contact Howard Kramer for more details. For more details on the Accessing Higher Ground conference, visit http://www.colorado.edu/ATconference/. For more information on the ATIA educational program, please visit: http://atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=4295. If you have questions about topics or the conference itself, please contact me at: hkra...@colorado.edu or 303-492-8672. -- Howard Kramer AHG Conference Coordinator Access Specialist 303-492-8672 fax: 492-5601 Disability Services Division of ODECE- achieving excellence through diversity and inclusion -- Howard Kramer AHG Conference Coordinator Access Specialist 303-492-8672 fax: 492-5601 Disability Services Division of ODECE- achieving excellence through diversity and inclusion *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I agree with the consensus that less is more with the skip navigation links at the top of the document. “Skip to main content” in the majority of cases will be all you need. If you are getting to a point where by rights you need a skip link, to skip the list of skip links, as they have grown so long you know you are following a bad path ;) Another school of thinking is to write the HTML source order so that navigation appears after the content, and use CSS to relocate the menu to the top of the page for sighted users. Of course you would still benefit from a skip link at the start of the navigation menu to skip past it/return to start of content. Note, it is a common misconception that users of assistive technologies linearly read a web page, when in fact the tools they have at their disposal allow them to traverse a page in multiple different ways. For instance, they can call out a dialog which lists all of the links on the page, or gain context by traversing a semantic document tree of the nested headings on the page. In these contexts, skip navigation is largely useless. This may be overkill, I will be interested to hear opinions, but I also place a note with ability to return to the top of the page too: div class=accessibility role=note smallEnd of page./small hr / a href=#pageReturn to top of page/a /div!-- / .accessibility -- /body /html I guess this could be extended to have a further link to “Return to start of content.” The idea with this is to notify the user that they have reached the end of the document, and rather than leave them at a loose end, give them options to traverse elsewhere. On 5 June 2012 05:49, Blumer, Luke luke.blu...@ato.gov.au wrote: ** Hi All, We are currently in the process of redesigning our website and are looking into the Skip to functionality. We are currently considering using: - Skip to Search - Skip to Primary Navigation - Skip to Secondary Navigation - Skip to Main Content - Skip to Sitemap We are wondering if there is any information on best practice for the Skip to function and whether there is a generally acceptable limit as to how many Skip to links should be used? We are also wondering whether we should be considering other ways for users to navigate around our pages such as AccessKey *** http://validator.w3.org/accesskeys.html*http://validator.w3.org/accesskeys.htmland whether this technique should be used to reduce the number of Skip to links we have listed above? Is there any native browser functionality that performs any of these functions that we should account for? Thankyou in advance for any advice. Regards, *Luke Blumer* Web Project Officer | Corporate Relations Australian Taxation Office Phone: 02 621*6 2970* ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 2869 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Warm regards, Kevin Rapley / User Experience Consultant 0115 714 2337 / 0772 345 7862 http://yoo-zuh-buhl.co.uk Yoo-zuh-buhl, The Terrace, Cultural Quarter, Grantham Road, Lincoln, LN2 1BD *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I do not recommend putting the navigation after the content. In fact I would go as far as to say it's a really bad practice because it violates every user's expectation of where the navigation will be. Using CSS to position it above the content makes things even worse because the tab order no longer follows the visual order. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specifically state that the DOM order should match the visual order - see http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C27 I have no problem with the 'Return to top of page' link, although the purists would argue that it is merely replicating the function of the Home key. Of course tablets and mobile phones don't have a Home key, which sort of undermines that argument. Steve From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Rapley Sent: 05 June 2012 22:37 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I agree with the consensus that less is more with the skip navigation links at the top of the document. Skip to main content in the majority of cases will be all you need. If you are getting to a point where by rights you need a skip link, to skip the list of skip links, as they have grown so long you know you are following a bad path ;) Another school of thinking is to write the HTML source order so that navigation appears after the content, and use CSS to relocate the menu to the top of the page for sighted users. Of course you would still benefit from a skip link at the start of the navigation menu to skip past it/return to start of content. Note, it is a common misconception that users of assistive technologies linearly read a web page, when in fact the tools they have at their disposal allow them to traverse a page in multiple different ways. For instance, they can call out a dialog which lists all of the links on the page, or gain context by traversing a semantic document tree of the nested headings on the page. In these contexts, skip navigation is largely useless. This may be overkill, I will be interested to hear opinions, but I also place a note with ability to return to the top of the page too: div class=accessibility role=note smallEnd of page./small hr / a href=#pageReturn to top of page/a /div!-- / .accessibility -- /body /html I guess this could be extended to have a further link to Return to start of content. The idea with this is to notify the user that they have reached the end of the document, and rather than leave them at a loose end, give them options to traverse elsewhere. On 5 June 2012 05:49, Blumer, Luke luke.blu...@ato.gov.aumailto:luke.blu...@ato.gov.au wrote: Hi All, We are currently in the process of redesigning our website and are looking into the Skip to functionality. We are currently considering using: * Skip to Search * Skip to Primary Navigation * Skip to Secondary Navigation * Skip to Main Content * Skip to Sitemap We are wondering if there is any information on best practice for the Skip to function and whether there is a generally acceptable limit as to how many Skip to links should be used? We are also wondering whether we should be considering other ways for users to navigate around our pages such as AccessKey http://validator.w3.org/accesskeys.html and whether this technique should be used to reduce the number of Skip to links we have listed above? Is there any native browser functionality that performs any of these functions that we should account for? Thankyou in advance for any advice. Regards, Luke Blumer Web Project Officer | Corporate Relations Australian Taxation Office Phone: 02 6216 2970 ** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 2869 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help:
[WSG] Source order of content / navigation
*I have started a new thread for this discussion, as not to hijack the thread on skip links.* Thanks for the reply Steve. As I said, it is another school of thought (not necessarily my own). I wouldn’t use content first source ordering for commercial implementations as the overhead of relocating items in CSS far outweighs any accessibility benefits (at this time). However, with newer layout methods on the horizon, such as CSS flex-box, where reordering source order will be far simpler, this is a very real and worthwhile possibility. I disagree that it is really bad practice. As mentioned, users of assistive technologies will rarely read a page in a linear fashion. WCAG 2 likes to contradict itself (but I am sure you knew that already: *WCAG 2.0, includes Success Criterion 2.4.3, which states:* 2.4.3 - Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can be bypassed. (Level 2) *WCAG 2.0 - Guideline 2.4.3* The document, Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Working Draft 23 November 2005), includes the following as one of the techniques that can be used to meet Success Criterion 2.4.3: Structuring the content so the main content comes first (in structure - but the default presentation may be a different order), and adding links to the blocks of repeated content. On 5 June 2012 22:57, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk wrote: I do not recommend putting the navigation after the content. In fact I would go as far as to say it’s a really bad practice because it violates every user’s expectation of where the navigation will be. Using CSS to position it above the content makes things even worse because the tab order no longer follows the visual order. ** ** The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specifically state that the DOM order should match the visual order – see http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C27 ** ** I have no problem with the ‘Return to top of page’ link, although the purists would argue that it is merely replicating the function of the Home key. Of course tablets and mobile phones don’t have a Home key, which sort of undermines that argument. ** ** Steve ** ** *From:* li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Rapley *Sent:* 05 June 2012 22:37 *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org *Subject:* Re: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ** ** I agree with the consensus that less is more with the skip navigation links at the top of the document. “Skip to main content” in the majority of cases will be all you need. If you are getting to a point where by rights you need a skip link, to skip the list of skip links, as they have grown so long you know you are following a bad path ;) ** ** Another school of thinking is to write the HTML source order so that navigation appears after the content, and use CSS to relocate the menu to the top of the page for sighted users. Of course you would still benefit from a skip link at the start of the navigation menu to skip past it/return to start of content. Note, it is a common misconception that users of assistive technologies linearly read a web page, when in fact the tools they have at their disposal allow them to traverse a page in multiple different ways. For instance, they can call out a dialog which lists all of the links on the page, or gain context by traversing a semantic document tree of the nested headings on the page. In these contexts, skip navigation is largely useless. ** ** This may be overkill, I will be interested to hear opinions, but I also place a note with ability to return to the top of the page too: div class=accessibility role=note smallEnd of page./small hr / a href=#pageReturn to top of page/a /div!-- / .accessibility -- /body /html ** ** I guess this could be extended to have a further link to “Return to start of content.” The idea with this is to notify the user that they have reached the end of the document, and rather than leave them at a loose end, give them options to traverse elsewhere. ** ** On 5 June 2012 05:49, Blumer, Luke luke.blu...@ato.gov.au wrote: Hi All, ** ** We are currently in the process of redesigning our website and are looking into the Skip to functionality. We are currently considering using: - Skip to Search - Skip to Primary Navigation - Skip to Secondary Navigation - Skip to Main Content - Skip to Sitemap ** ** We are wondering if there is any information on best
Re: [WSG] Source order of content / navigation
An interesting discussion... Back in 2006, Roger Hudson, Lisa Miller and I conducted testing on three aspects associated with screen reader use (skip links, source order and structural lables). The findings regarding source order: t appears that when visiting a web page, most, if not all, screen reader users expect at least the main site navigation to be presented before the content of the page. There appears to be little evidence to support the view that screen reader users would prefer to have the content presented first, or find sites easier to use when this occurs. It is our view, that a continuation of the practice of placing navigation before the content of the page will benefit some screen reader users, in particular those users who are still developing their skills with the technology. It is probably desirable however, to present the content of the page before extraneous information, such as advertisements and related links, as well as the page footer. Interpret as you see fit :) Russ On 06/06/2012, at 8:35 AM, Kevin Rapley wrote: I have started a new thread for this discussion, as not to hijack the thread on skip links. Thanks for the reply Steve. As I said, it is another school of thought (not necessarily my own). I wouldn’t use content first source ordering for commercial implementations as the overhead of relocating items in CSS far outweighs any accessibility benefits (at this time). However, with newer layout methods on the horizon, such as CSS flex-box, where reordering source order will be far simpler, this is a very real and worthwhile possibility. I disagree that it is really bad practice. As mentioned, users of assistive technologies will rarely read a page in a linear fashion. WCAG 2 likes to contradict itself (but I am sure you knew that already: WCAG 2.0, includes Success Criterion 2.4.3, which states: 2.4.3 - Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can be bypassed. (Level 2) WCAG 2.0 - Guideline 2.4.3 The document, Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Working Draft 23 November 2005), includes the following as one of the techniques that can be used to meet Success Criterion 2.4.3: Structuring the content so the main content comes first (in structure - but the default presentation may be a different order), and adding links to the blocks of repeated content. On 5 June 2012 22:57, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk wrote: I do not recommend putting the navigation after the content. In fact I would go as far as to say it’s a really bad practice because it violates every user’s expectation of where the navigation will be. Using CSS to position it above the content makes things even worse because the tab order no longer follows the visual order. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specifically state that the DOM order should match the visual order – see http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C27 I have no problem with the ‘Return to top of page’ link, although the purists would argue that it is merely replicating the function of the Home key. Of course tablets and mobile phones don’t have a Home key, which sort of undermines that argument. Steve From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Rapley Sent: 05 June 2012 22:37 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] WCAG 2.0 compliance and best practise on the Skip to function [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] I agree with the consensus that less is more with the skip navigation links at the top of the document. “Skip to main content” in the majority of cases will be all you need. If you are getting to a point where by rights you need a skip link, to skip the list of skip links, as they have grown so long you know you are following a bad path ;) Another school of thinking is to write the HTML source order so that navigation appears after the content, and use CSS to relocate the menu to the top of the page for sighted users. Of course you would still benefit from a skip link at the start of the navigation menu to skip past it/return to start of content. Note, it is a common misconception that users of assistive technologies linearly read a web page, when in fact the tools they have at their disposal allow them to traverse a page in multiple different ways. For instance, they can call out a dialog which lists all of the links on the page, or gain context by traversing a semantic document tree of the nested headings on the page. In these contexts, skip navigation is largely useless. This may be overkill, I will be interested to hear opinions, but I also place a note with ability to return to the top of the page too: div class=accessibility role=note
RE: [WSG] Source order of content / navigation
I am familiar with that research but until now I didn't realise that Russ had been involved - well done for the good work. The source order does not only affect people who use assistive technologies. Many people use keyboard-only navigation, and it is very confusing when the visual order does not match the source order. I use a lot of keyboard navigation through choice, not necessity, and the BBC website used to drive me to screaming point because the tab order went all over the place even though the visual order was completely conventional. You never knew where to look to find which element had focus. Thankfully most of the pages using that template have been replaced. We do a lot of user testing with people with disabilities and we find that they use a variety of techniques for navigation. The more-experienced ones will adapt their approach depending on the design of the website. The less-experienced ones do indeed tend to navigate in a linear fashion for fear of missing something important. Don't take any notice of the WCAG guidance from 2005 or earlier. The first draft of WCAG 2.0 was radically different from the version that was finally released. Following widespread criticism there was an almost total rewrite in 2007 and 2008. Your particular reference has been rephrased in the latest version at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-order.html, and it lacks context such as what the left-hand navigation is for and why it is deemed necessary for the focus to move to the main body content first. As a general principle, meeting users' expectations is important for a good user experience. As Steve Krug said, don't make me think. Steve -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Russ Weakley Sent: 05 June 2012 23:53 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Source order of content / navigation An interesting discussion... Back in 2006, Roger Hudson, Lisa Miller and I conducted testing on three aspects associated with screen reader use (skip links, source order and structural lables). The findings regarding source order: t appears that when visiting a web page, most, if not all, screen reader users expect at least the main site navigation to be presented before the content of the page. There appears to be little evidence to support the view that screen reader users would prefer to have the content presented first, or find sites easier to use when this occurs. It is our view, that a continuation of the practice of placing navigation before the content of the page will benefit some screen reader users, in particular those users who are still developing their skills with the technology. It is probably desirable however, to present the content of the page before extraneous information, such as advertisements and related links, as well as the page footer. Interpret as you see fit :) Russ On 06/06/2012, at 8:35 AM, Kevin Rapley wrote: I have started a new thread for this discussion, as not to hijack the thread on skip links. Thanks for the reply Steve. As I said, it is another school of thought (not necessarily my own). I wouldn't use content first source ordering for commercial implementations as the overhead of relocating items in CSS far outweighs any accessibility benefits (at this time). However, with newer layout methods on the horizon, such as CSS flex-box, where reordering source order will be far simpler, this is a very real and worthwhile possibility. I disagree that it is really bad practice. As mentioned, users of assistive technologies will rarely read a page in a linear fashion. WCAG 2 likes to contradict itself (but I am sure you knew that already: WCAG 2.0, includes Success Criterion 2.4.3, which states: 2.4.3 - Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can be bypassed. (Level 2) WCAG 2.0 - Guideline 2.4.3 The document, Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Working Draft 23 November 2005), includes the following as one of the techniques that can be used to meet Success Criterion 2.4.3: Structuring the content so the main content comes first (in structure - but the default presentation may be a different order), and adding links to the blocks of repeated content. On 5 June 2012 22:57, Steve Green steve.gr...@testpartners.co.uk wrote: I do not recommend putting the navigation after the content. In fact I would go as far as to say it's a really bad practice because it violates every user's expectation of where the navigation will be. Using CSS to position it above the content makes things even worse because the tab order no longer follows the visual order. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specifically state that the DOM order should match the visual order - see http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C27 I
Re: [WSG] Source order of content / navigation
ooops. Reference: http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm#conclusion t appears that when visiting a web page, most, if not all, screen reader users expect at least the main site navigation to be presented before the content of the page. There appears to be little evidence to support the view that screen reader users would prefer to have the content presented first, or find sites easier to use when this occurs. It is our view, that a continuation of the practice of placing navigation before the content of the page will benefit some screen reader users, in particular those users who are still developing their skills with the technology. It is probably desirable however, to present the content of the page before extraneous information, such as advertisements and related links, as well as the page footer. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
