[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 ***
Re: [WSG] source order
On 13/10/07 (09:21) JonMarc said: with all the skips and jump tos and methods for pulling links and whatnots, i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to the footer/copyright/whatever-else-you-put-there Remember that screen reader applications can commonly call up a handy list of all the links on a page, so those in the copyright section would also be presented in that list (albeit probably at the end of the list) without the user necessarily needing to 'read' their way down to them. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Rick Lecoat wrote: Remember that screen reader applications can commonly call up a handy list of all the links on a page Has anyone tested how skip links work from a link list? I have a little theory called the hierarchy of link specificity that I've been meaning to write up for years. The theory concerns itself with source order and link lists. It goes something like this: with a reverse source order (content before nav) content specific links will always appear before the current section nav ,main nav, and utility links - this should have the effect of allowing the most relevant (to the current context) links to appear at the top of lists - effectively shortening them considerably. With traditional source order link lists are essentially random and people still have to scroll through the entire list to find relevant links. kind regards, Terrence Wood. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Terrence Wood wrote: It goes something like this: with a reverse source order (content before nav) content specific links will always appear before the current section nav ,main nav, and utility links - this should have the effect of allowing the most relevant (to the current context) links to appear at the top of lists Most relevant to whom, though? If I landed on a page (say from a google search) but actually want to navigate further into/around the site, *my* most relevant links are the navigation ones. One size does not always fit all. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
If you landed on the page from a search result and it's not the page you want... can we assume that it be close, given you clicked to there in the first place? Patrick, I suspect your assumptions are way bigger than mine on this one :-) But, like I said, it's a theory (untested), so we don't really know either way. kind regards, Terrence Wood. On 16/10/2007, at 10:47 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Terrence Wood wrote: It goes something like this: with a reverse source order (content before nav) content specific links will always appear before the current section nav ,main nav, and utility links - this should have the effect of allowing the most relevant (to the current context) links to appear at the top of lists Most relevant to whom, though? If I landed on a page (say from a google search) but actually want to navigate further into/around the site, *my* most relevant links are the navigation ones. One size does not always fit all. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
agreed, good message Ben... something this thread made me think about that i really hadn't considered before, and can't recall reading about anywhere (granted i am new around here): with all the skips and jump tos and methods for pulling links and whatnots, i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to the footer/copyright/whatever-else-you-put-there most sites have the major links duplicated down there at the bottom so the anyone who has scrolled down can navigate from there if they'd like. on the vast majority of websites, this comes ABOVE the copyright portion. the copyright portion is also usually where you find privacy notices, terms of service links, etc. i'm sure they can be found by someone using a screen reader if they look, but it just seems like someone listening to a page being read out would likely move on to a new location before the reader ever got down to that last section. any thoughts? On 10/11/07, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ben, this is damn fine summary. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 11/10/2007, at 12:40 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote: Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? This is a jury is still out issue since nobody has comprehensive data, just small studies and opinion informed by observation of a relatively small number of users. What I think we can say for sure: 1) No matter which way you go, be consistent across the site so users can learn how your site works and trust it to work the same way as they move through the site. 2a) Either way, include skip/jump links; but 2b) Include visible skip links where possible or use invisible-but-accessible skip links (ie. do not use display: none; to hide skip links as a very large number of users will never be able to access them). If they are hidden, try to make them visible on focus so sighted keyboard users can see them. 3) Use meaningful link text and a logical heading structure. Not only is this just good practice and good for SEO... the accessibility-oriented reason people say this is that some (many? most?) screen reader users don't actually read a page from top to bottom. They use features which extract all the headings or links into a list; read just that list then use that to jump around content. Once they identify that they're on the page they really need, then and only then will they read the whole page. I will no doubt be corrected for saying this - please note that I am not saying *all* screen reader users do this. Screen Reader users have habits which are just as varied as other web users. No two people use the web in precisely the same way - but overall trends and common approaches can be identified. Enough disclaimer? :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
JonMarc Wright wrote: i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to the footer/copyright/whatever-else-you-put-there I wonder how many sighted users make it down there as well, because for the most part that section of a page can be happily ignored unless you're looking for something very specific (Hmm...I wonder what the copyright on this page is? or Are there any strange terms and conditions attached to this site?). most sites have the major links duplicated down there at the bottom I thought that was a bit old school nowadays... i'm sure they can be found by someone using a screen reader if they look, but it just seems like someone listening to a page being read out would likely move on to a new location before the reader ever got down to that last section. Don't forget that, even for screen reader users, reading a page is an interactive process. They don't just get to a page, sit back, and let their AT read it top to bottom, jumping at links when they come across them. So I'd say it's no different from sighted users. Convention is that copyright etc is usually right at the bottom of the page. If I, as a user, am interested in that sort of stuff, I'll go there (scrolling to it if I'm a sighted mouse user, or doing something like CTRL+End and backtracking a paragraph or two if I'm a keyboard/screen reader user). If the information in the footer is more important than general copyright stuff, then you would need to move it further up the page structure. IMHO, of course :) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] source order
i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to the footer/copyright In my experience they often do, although that's not because they are looking for it. Remember that a screen reader user has no idea how long a page is until they get to the end. They may be one line from the end, yet still have no idea what percentage is left. To some extent it depends on the page content. If it's a form they will probably submit it when they get to the Submit button, although more experienced users might look for special notes and validation rules below the form. If it's static content they will usually keep going till they reach content that exists on all pages, which may be the right-hand column or the footer depending on the design. Steve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JonMarc Wright Sent: 13 October 2007 09:22 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] source order agreed, good message Ben... something this thread made me think about that i really hadn't considered before, and can't recall reading about anywhere (granted i am new around here): with all the skips and jump tos and methods for pulling links and whatnots, i wonder how many people using screen readers ever make it down there to the footer/copyright/whatever-else-you-put-there most sites have the major links duplicated down there at the bottom so the anyone who has scrolled down can navigate from there if they'd like. on the vast majority of websites, this comes ABOVE the copyright portion. the copyright portion is also usually where you find privacy notices, terms of service links, etc. i'm sure they can be found by someone using a screen reader if they look, but it just seems like someone listening to a page being read out would likely move on to a new location before the reader ever got down to that last section. any thoughts? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Remember that a screen reader user has no idea how long a page is until they get to the end. They may be one line from the end, yet still have no idea what percentage is left. I'd have thought that would be a fairly useful feature to have. I often judge whether I'm going to read something on how long it is. -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
On 10/10/07 (23:03) russ said: ../ snip /.. However, most people would agree that: 1. consistency across the site is the most important thing (changing the source order on different pages could cause a great deal of confusion). 2. if navigation comes before content, skip links are valuable for certain types of users. But for less experienced screen reader users, it seems clear that many are likely to find skip links a useful device for moving directly to specific sections of the page. An endless debate. And this is before opening up the other aspect of the debate... How source order affects Google rank :) Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this. Oh, and as many correctly guessed, the article to which I was obliquely referring was indeed http://usability.com.au/resources/source- order.cfm -- I meant to cite the URL in the original post but it slipped through the net. There are merits to both sides of the debate, but after thinking it through and in light of the opinions offered here, I think that I'm going to go with the following principles: 1. Navigation before content in cases where navigation is modest (say, half a dozen items or so). 2. Content first in those cases where navigation is more voluminous and less clear cut (eg blogs, where there might be blogrolls or archive link lists of considerable length). (Georg: the article you cited was primarily discussing blogs rather than 'regular' sites. It made some interesting points though). 3. Skip links to permit jumping to content areas (main content and sidebar): definitely, and visible too as they can useful to mobile users. 4. The Google ranking issue is a tricky one, but the official google line is always 'design for humans, not robots', and if making your site as accessible as possible isn't designing for humans then I don't know what is. (Interestingly, a screenreader might be considered almost a grey area between 'human' and 'robot'). 5. And finally, as Russ pointed out, consistency is vital, but that is true of any site design, whether accessible or not. Thanks again to all who threw in their 2 cents. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? This is a jury is still out issue since nobody has comprehensive data, just small studies and opinion informed by observation of a relatively small number of users. What I think we can say for sure: 1) No matter which way you go, be consistent across the site so users can learn how your site works and trust it to work the same way as they move through the site. 2a) Either way, include skip/jump links; but 2b) Include visible skip links where possible or use invisible-but-accessible skip links (ie. do not use display: none; to hide skip links as a very large number of users will never be able to access them). If they are hidden, try to make them visible on focus so sighted keyboard users can see them. 3) Use meaningful link text and a logical heading structure. Not only is this just good practice and good for SEO... the accessibility-oriented reason people say this is that some (many? most?) screen reader users don't actually read a page from top to bottom. They use features which extract all the headings or links into a list; read just that list then use that to jump around content. Once they identify that they're on the page they really need, then and only then will they read the whole page. I will no doubt be corrected for saying this - please note that I am not saying *all* screen reader users do this. Screen Reader users have habits which are just as varied as other web users. No two people use the web in precisely the same way - but overall trends and common approaches can be identified. Enough disclaimer? :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Ben, this is damn fine summary. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 11/10/2007, at 12:40 PM, Ben Buchanan wrote: Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? This is a jury is still out issue since nobody has comprehensive data, just small studies and opinion informed by observation of a relatively small number of users. What I think we can say for sure: 1) No matter which way you go, be consistent across the site so users can learn how your site works and trust it to work the same way as they move through the site. 2a) Either way, include skip/jump links; but 2b) Include visible skip links where possible or use invisible-but-accessible skip links (ie. do not use display: none; to hide skip links as a very large number of users will never be able to access them). If they are hidden, try to make them visible on focus so sighted keyboard users can see them. 3) Use meaningful link text and a logical heading structure. Not only is this just good practice and good for SEO... the accessibility-oriented reason people say this is that some (many? most?) screen reader users don't actually read a page from top to bottom. They use features which extract all the headings or links into a list; read just that list then use that to jump around content. Once they identify that they're on the page they really need, then and only then will they read the whole page. I will no doubt be corrected for saying this - please note that I am not saying *all* screen reader users do this. Screen Reader users have habits which are just as varied as other web users. No two people use the web in precisely the same way - but overall trends and common approaches can be identified. Enough disclaimer? :) cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] source order
Hi there; I'm currently laying down the markup for a site and have been pondering whether to put page content above navigation in the source. I often read that this is a good idea, and that makes perfect sense to me as long as there are skip links so that people can reach the navigation easily, but I recently read an article at usability.com.au that would seem to indicate that few users of screen readers expect this to be the case. Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Rick Lecoat wrote: Hi there; I'm currently laying down the markup for a site and have been pondering whether to put page content above navigation in the source. I often read that this is a good idea, and that makes perfect sense to me as long as there are skip links so that people can reach the navigation easily, but I recently read an article at usability.com.au that would seem to indicate that few users of screen readers expect this to be the case. Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? I think the article http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm *is* the prevailing wisdom in this matter :) To quote from the summary: This paper proposes that when it comes to accessibility, the quality of the actual code on a web page is much more important than the ordering of the page content. Meaningful and appropriately marked up headings, descriptive link text and the clear identification of different levels of navigation, allow screen reader users to most effectively use their technologies when visiting a website. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
I think that on the first place must be content, and only after that - navigation. Sorry for the poor English 2007/10/10, Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi there; I'm currently laying down the markup for a site and have been pondering whether to put page content above navigation in the source. I often read that this is a good idea, and that makes perfect sense to me as long as there are skip links so that people can reach the navigation easily, but I recently read an article at usability.com.au that would seem to indicate that few users of screen readers expect this to be the case. Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] source order
The only research on this was on a tiny number of screen reader users (18 as I recall) and they had a very slight bias towards haing the navigation first. However, there were differences between people of differing ability. Experienced users tended to just deal with whatever was thrown at them, whereas less-experienced users had a strong preference for having the navigation first because that's what they were used to. We have not explicitly tested this, but such a site came up during one of our public JAWS demonstrations. The screen reader user (who is highly proficient) didn't like it at all. It took him a while to figure out what was going on, and it was a struggle even after he did. A lot of people spout opinions on this, but it is all conjecture, and most of the people making assertions in favour of having content first have no experience of user testing. People expect sites to behave the way they always have done, so before we go changing the source order I would want to see a credible study and a significant bias in favour of change. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: 09 October 2007 22:15 To: Web Standards Group Subject: [WSG] source order Hi there; I'm currently laying down the markup for a site and have been pondering whether to put page content above navigation in the source. I often read that this is a good idea, and that makes perfect sense to me as long as there are skip links so that people can reach the navigation easily, but I recently read an article at usability.com.au that would seem to indicate that few users of screen readers expect this to be the case. Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Rick Lecoat wrote: Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? Point 4 in this article... http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=57TopicID=167DocumentID=2757 ...seems to indicate content first as best, with the navigation first with skip link to content as the second best option. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? You're probably referring to this: 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. http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm Bruce Lawson suggests otherwise: Personally, I use the visual layout of nav on the left, but at the bottom of the source. With a huge nav like a blog generally has, I think Google likes my content better if it¹s at the top of the source, and it¹s better for screenreader users not to tab through endless nav. http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2007/navigation-or-content-first/ Vision Australia suggests that source order should reflect the visual order of the page where possible. So, if you had as header across the top of the page, then three columns beside each other (such as navigation, content, extra information), the source order should follow the same order. This would mean (header followed by navigation, content and finally, extras). Like many areas of accessibility, there are grey areas and differences of opinion. :) However, most people would agree that: 1. consistency across the site is the most important thing (changing the source order on different pages could cause a great deal of confusion). 2. if navigation comes before content, skip links are valuable for certain types of users. But for less experienced screen reader users, it seems clear that many are likely to find skip links a useful device for moving directly to specific sections of the page. An endless debate. And this is before opening up the other aspect of the debate... How source order affects Google rank :) Thanks Russ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] source order
Another thought. Are you planning to position the navigation at the top of the page even though it is at the end of the source? If so, I would say unequivocally that is the wrong thing to do. This will adversely affect anyone who uses keyboard navigation, because the tab sequence will not be anything like they expect. Or do you also plan to mess with the tabindex? And quite what sighted screen reader users will make of it is anyone's guess. Why change what is not broken? I don't hear any users saying they want content first. Where is the proof that making such a substantial change will benefit anyone? All we have is an assertion from a tiny number of tests suggesting that it shouldn't have an adverse effect on most people. But we run the risk that this test on a statistically insignificant number of people may actually be wrong, and that we will make it worse for a lot of people. But hey, it's cool to do things differently, and that's obviously more important that doing what's best for users. The first law of usability is hereby revoked. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Lecoat Sent: 09 October 2007 22:15 To: Web Standards Group Subject: [WSG] source order Hi there; I'm currently laying down the markup for a site and have been pondering whether to put page content above navigation in the source. I often read that this is a good idea, and that makes perfect sense to me as long as there are skip links so that people can reach the navigation easily, but I recently read an article at usability.com.au that would seem to indicate that few users of screen readers expect this to be the case. Is there a prevailing wisdom in this matter? Content first? Or navigation first? Cheers; -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
russ - maxdesign wrote: 2. if navigation comes before content, skip links are valuable for certain types of users. And if you have content first, would you have a skip to navigation link before it? :) P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (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 __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Mike Brown wrote: I think the article http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm *is* the prevailing wisdom in this matter :) Which is to say, some testing with a very specific design was used (with very little content or navigation), and that's all we have to go on so far. Steve Green wrote: A lot of people spout opinions on this, but it is all conjecture, and most of the people making assertions in favour of having content first have no experience of user testing I have experience with testing, and tend to put content first. Unfortunately it's not so simple, there are several related issues, depending on the design, and mostly affecting those using non-visual access: 1. What the user is used to (learning effect). 2. What is most effective, without the learning effect. 3. How easy it is to work out what the site does. Long term, 2 should take precedence, and 3 should help people get over 1. Otherwise we'd still be using tables for layout and asterisks for null alts. People expect sites to behave the way they always have done ... Why change what is not broken? I don't hear any users saying they want content first. Kind of like Neilsen's people always use other sites more than yours, although it's not the sort of thing that users think of or complain about explicitly. The problem is that things could not improve if that is *always* followed, and for many sites, content first makes more logical sense for linear access. (Screen reader, small screen, text browser etc.) With the (major) caveat that good headings and skip links will make more difference than the source order, content first makes more sense if you assume that people go to a site for content. It's the equivalent to the visual aspects of good navigation - it doesn't get in the way. The bottom line is that in testing, people tend to learn a site and so long as it's consistent and (concisely) sign-posted, people will get around. Almost all of our sites templates have content first, and that's worked. The ones that have navigation at the top have a horizontal navigation that needs to push the content down when text is expanded, and I guess we'll have to wait until the CSS3 layout module before it's worth experimenting with source order for that type of design :-/ -Alastair *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
An endless debate. And this is before opening up the other aspect of the debate... How source order affects Google rank :) also .. what about users of small-screen devices like mobile phones where lots of scrolling quickly becomes a pain? then to make matter worse there is the issue of widely varying (sometimes limited or none at all) support for css on different mobile devices... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] source order
Put the 'main' 4-5 menu links up the top and then content with the extra navigation (sidebar of blogs etc) afterwards or even not include it in the mobile css [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/10/2007 10:24:30 am An endless debate. And this is before opening up the other aspect of the debate... How source order affects Google rank :) also .. what about users of small-screen devices like mobile phones where lots of scrolling quickly becomes a pain? then to make matter worse there is the issue of widely varying (sometimes limited or none at all) support for css on different mobile devices... *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
