Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[John Horner]

Can't the TITLE attribute be used as a further explanation of what 
"skip to content" does?

TITLE="This link takes you past the navigation to the main content of 
the page" or whatever?

Disclaimer: I know nothing about screenreaders and how they handle the TITLE.
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Andy Budd]

Screenreaders have loads of useful features built in like the ability 
to bring up a list of all the headings on a page and then jump to that 
heading. However the vast majority of screenreader users don't use 
these advanced features.

The same goes with websites. Just because you add things in like skip 
nav and access keys, you shouldn't automatically assume that everybody 
will use them, or even know what they mean.

I don't necessarily think it's a naming issue, although as a number of 
people have pointed out, JAWS pronounces content differently depending 
on context. I think it's just that, while in the web accessibility 
community skip nav is a recognised convention, it hasn't seeped into 
the screenreader community at large yet.

It's a bit like adding a home link to the logo of a site. Most web 
designers do this by default, but even now, there are loads of web 
users who are unaware of this convention. If a more experienced web 
user was to show then this convention they would no doubt start using 
it. However generally web users stick to their own patters until there 
is a compelling need to deviate from them.

Maybe we should start putting a para about skip nav links in our 
accessibility statements along with a description of our accesskeys, 
compliance goals etc.

Andy Budd
http://www.message.uk.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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[matt andrews]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:25:04 +1000, Jackie Reid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why cant you just say "read content" and leave the skip bit out altogether
> 
> jackie

as pointed out earlier, the confusion/difficulty seems to be largely
with the way that Jaws reads "content" (accent on last syllable,
implying "at peace"), whereas it reads the phrase "main content" with
the accent on the first syllable.

though of course in some cases users might not be familiar with the
concept anyway...  and the word "content" is kind of jargon too.
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Hill, Tim]

They might see that that as a link to an external source I think.


Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jackie Reid
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2004 5:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

Why cant you just say "read content" and leave the skip bit out
altogether


jackie

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> Hill, Tim wrote:
>
>>  I believe as more sites take
>> this approach on board, it will become more prevalent to these users 
>> of what the links do.
>
>
> I'd agree with that. Additional two points:
> - even if the user doesn't understand what they are, and decides to 
> skip them (no pun intended), it doesn't significantly degrade their 
> user experience compared to other sites; what I'm trying to say is:
> it's a bonus, an extra feature, icing on the cake that many large 
> sites don't necessarily have yet...but it's not an essential part.
> Even if the user ignores it, the site remains as usable as the one 
> without skip links;
> - be careful not to take the comment of a single user to signify a 
> whole section of the audience; of course, it's a comment we need to 
> take on board, but it can only be a truly useful comment that actually

> dramatically influences our design decisions if an overwhelming number

> of users make it - in the same way that we wouldn't necessarily take 
> any single sighted user's comments as an imperative (hey, I don't like

> navigation on the left, but I prefer it on the top).
>
> That's not to say that it's not an interesting observation. Just to
> clarify: I'm not trying to belittle the original thread starter's 
> message...just playing devil's advocate and making sure this doesn't 
> cause a knee-jerk wave from less pragmatic developers.
>
> Patrick H. Lauke


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Jackie Reid]

Why cant you just say "read content" and leave the skip bit out altogether
jackie
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Hill, Tim wrote:
 I believe as more sites take
this approach on board, it will become more prevalent to these users of
what the links do. 

I'd agree with that. Additional two points:
- even if the user doesn't understand what they are, and decides to 
skip them (no pun intended), it doesn't significantly degrade their 
user experience compared to other sites; what I'm trying to say is: 
it's a bonus, an extra feature, icing on the cake that many large 
sites don't necessarily have yet...but it's not an essential part. 
Even if the user ignores it, the site remains as usable as the one 
without skip links;
- be careful not to take the comment of a single user to signify a 
whole section of the audience; of course, it's a comment we need to 
take on board, but it can only be a truly useful comment that actually 
dramatically influences our design decisions if an overwhelming number 
of users make it - in the same way that we wouldn't necessarily take 
any single sighted user's comments as an imperative (hey, I don't like 
navigation on the left, but I prefer it on the top).

That's not to say that it's not an interesting observation. Just to 
clarify: I'm not trying to belittle the original thread starter's 
message...just playing devil's advocate and making sure this doesn't 
cause a knee-jerk wave from less pragmatic developers.

Patrick H. Lauke

**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Brett Walsh]

Tim makes a good point. I wondered what those links were for also. it would
make sense to be more descriptive, especially when it doesn't impact on the
sites layout or structure. It can't hurt.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Hill, Tim
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2004 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

'skip to content' versus 'skip to content of this page'?

Hmm, I'm not so sure, sounds pretty obvious to me. Skip links should be
as short as possible, because they get consistently read when a user
visits a page with screen reading software. I believe as more sites take
this approach on board, it will become more prevalent to these users of
what the links do. 
 

Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

 

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kear
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2004 10:18 AM
    To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
    Subject: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...



I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since he
uses Jaws screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I
was observing as how we in the profession were trying to make things
easier for people using other devices than a browser to use the web. 

 

"For example, one of the things we're increasingly doing these
days is having a 'skip to content' link at the top of the page.  In many
cases it's only visible to screen readers."

 

Then he floored me.  He said "oh yes!  I've seen those."
(interesting turn of phrase from a guy who's been blind since birth)
"but what are they for? I've never used them because I don't know what
they do."

 

 

 

The point is,  he didn't know what the skip-to-content link was
for and therefore he wouldn't use it, lest he find himself a long way
away from where he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble
getting back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in the
link itself.   Perhaps instead of "skip to content' we need to have the
link say "skip to the content of this page" or some such.A blind
reader will hear Jaws say "VISITED LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT"  and thinking
about it, it isn't totally obvious what that does. 

 

 

Cheers

Mike Kear

AFP Webworks

Windsor, NSW, Australia

http://afpwebworks.com

.com, .net, .org etc domains start at A$20/year

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**


**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Terrence Wood]

I think a concise menu is the way to go and I have been experimenting 
with this concept recently. As it stands I've got something like this:

main content
page summary
site menu
accessibility features
search this site
(The page summary is an abstract of the page - a bit like a meta header 
but inline and [hopefully] useful.)

Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-25 2:19 PM, Paul Novitski wrote:
Since "navigation" presents a jargon problem, perhaps "menu" or another 
less techie term might work:

Skip past menu
Jump over menu
What's an appropriate metaphor for a navigation menu if you're not a 
programmer and if your interaction with the menu is functional & 
auditory and not visual?

Also I wonder whether a concise table of contents for the page would work:
Jump to:
  - page content
  - page menu
  - website menu
  - page footer
Once users became accustomed to such a convention, they would know to 
take the first option most of the time.

And better than proceeding by speculation and trial & error, of course, 
would be to poll visually-impaired users to find out what metaphors & 
wording they'd prefer.  I imagine this has already been done...?

Paul
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
--
***
  Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards?
  Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004.
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details
***
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Herrod, Lisa]

This is an interesting point and a good example of where usability
evaluations and user-centred design can complement good design and technical
skill.

Paul said:
"Since "navigation" presents a jargon problem, perhaps "menu" or another 
less techie term might work"

And 

"What's an appropriate metaphor for a navigation menu if you're not a 
programmer and if your interaction with the menu is functional & auditory 
and not visual?"


We are all programmers/coders/techies to some extent. So many words become a
part of our vernacular over time and we often forget they mean something
very different to non-techies, who may, nonetheless, be experienced web
users.

As an example, 'FAQ'. Ask around for a definition and I bet you'll be
surprised by the variety of responses you get. 


Lisa


-Original Message-
From: Paul Novitski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...


Since "navigation" presents a jargon problem, perhaps "menu" or another 
less techie term might work:

Skip past menu
Jump over menu

What's an appropriate metaphor for a navigation menu if you're not a 
programmer and if your interaction with the menu is functional & auditory 
and not visual?

Also I wonder whether a concise table of contents for the page would work:

Jump to:
  - page content
  - page menu
  - website menu
  - page footer

Once users became accustomed to such a convention, they would know to take 
the first option most of the time.

And better than proceeding by speculation and trial & error, of course, 
would be to poll visually-impaired users to find out what metaphors & 
wording they'd prefer.  I imagine this has already been done...?

Paul

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Paul Novitski]

Since "navigation" presents a jargon problem, perhaps "menu" or another 
less techie term might work:

Skip past menu
Jump over menu
What's an appropriate metaphor for a navigation menu if you're not a 
programmer and if your interaction with the menu is functional & auditory 
and not visual?

Also I wonder whether a concise table of contents for the page would work:
Jump to:
  - page content
  - page menu
  - website menu
  - page footer
Once users became accustomed to such a convention, they would know to take 
the first option most of the time.

And better than proceeding by speculation and trial & error, of course, 
would be to poll visually-impaired users to find out what metaphors & 
wording they'd prefer.  I imagine this has already been done...?

Paul
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Damian Sweeney]

I still use the 'skip' so as to convey that the link is within the 
page. Similar logic applies to 'Back/Return to top'. Is my logic 
flawed in this regard? What do usability gurus out there think?

Damian
In discussion's I've been involved in, the best link text describes 
the link's destination, not the action it takes -- this is pretty 
much how most other navigation works.

So
"skip to content" => "main content"
"main content" is preferred because it gets pronounced properly by 
screen readers.

I describe accesskeys in an accessibility page, and don't bother 
markingup or styling them in any way to exposed them to users. I use 
content generation in my own user stylesheet to see them.

Using the title attribute to descibe the accesskey is a good idea.
Terrence Wood.

**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Terrence Wood]

In discussion's I've been involved in, the best link text describes the 
link's destination, not the action it takes -- this is pretty much how 
most other navigation works.

So
"skip to content" => "main content"
"main content" is preferred because it gets pronounced properly by 
screen readers.

I describe accesskeys in an accessibility page, and don't bother 
markingup or styling them in any way to exposed them to users. I use 
content generation in my own user stylesheet to see them.

Using the title attribute to descibe the accesskey is a good idea.
Terrence Wood.
On 2004-11-25 12:43 PM, Ted Drake wrote:
In one of the accessibility forums that I attended, it was suggested we use
skip to main content instead of content. Some screen readers will read content
with the inflection that it will bring you happiness and a sense of content
rather than give you content.
I do like your idea of being more descriptive. Our link is hidden anyways, so
why not give them more information.
Here's something else I noticed, I use teh [s} to signify the access key. It
looks stupid in fangs, openbracket s close bracket which is what Jaws would
do. So, I think I'm going to change it to "Access Key = S"
Any ideas?
Ted
www.csatravelprotection.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Kear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since he uses Jaws
screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I was observing
as how we in the profession were trying to make things easier for people using
other devices than a browser to use the web.

"For example, one of the things we're increasingly doing these days is having
a 'skip to content' link at the top of the page.  In many cases it's only
visible to screen readers."

Then he floored me.  He said "oh yes!  I've seen those." (interesting turn of
phrase from a guy who's been blind since birth) "but what are they for? I've
never used them because I don't know what they do."



The point is,  he didn't know what the skip-to-content link was for and
therefore he wouldn't use it, lest he find himself a long way away from where
he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble getting back again.
Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in the link itself.   Perhaps
instead of "skip to content' we need to have the link say "skip to the content
of this page" or somesuch.A blind reader will hear Jaws say "VISITED
LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT"  and thinking about it, it isn't totally obvious what
that does.


Cheers
Mike Kear
AFP Webworks
Windsor, NSW, Australia
http://afpwebworks.com
.com, .net, .org etc domains start at A$20/year
--
***
  Are you in the Wellington area and interested in web standards?
  Wellington Web Standards Group inaugural meeting 9 Dec 2004.
  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/event24.cfm for details
***
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Nick Lo]

To further that in a speech reader article passed on By Steven Faulkner 
([WSG] Observing Users Who Work With Screen Readers ):

http://www.redish.net/content/papers/InteractionsPaperAuthorsVer.pdf
It says:
6. Many want to skip the navigation but do not do so.
Many Web sites include a Skip Navigation link at the beginning of each 
Web page. Clicking on that link bypasses the global navigation at the 
top (and left – depending on where the developer has ended the skip 
navigation). Our participants desperately wanted to not listen to the 
navigation each time they got to a page. They wanted to get right to 
the content. But only half of our participants knew what "skip 
navigation" means. Some ranted to us about the problem of having to 
listen to the same "stuff" on each page, but they did not choose "skip 
navigation." Some jumped to the bottom of each page and scanned back up 
the pages to avoid the "stuff" at the top.

If we think about that, it's not surprising. "Navigation" in this 
context is Web jargon. In fact, the half that knew "skip navigation" 
were the 508 consultants, the software engineer, and the highly 
sophisticated computer users.

Some developers have used the phrase "skip to content" instead of "skip 
navigation." That seems like a good idea. Unfortunately, it does not 
work in JAWS because "content" can be a noun or an adjective in English 
– and JAWS reads "skip to content" with the accent on the second 
syllable, like the word for "happy." Our participants did not 
understand that statement at all. And no one used the JAWS keyboard 
command, N, which the screen reader developers put into the product to 
meet 508 requirements and do what Skip Navigation does even if the Web 
site developer did not include a Skip Navigation tag.

Guideline 10. Include a "skip" link at the top of every Web page. Name 
it "Skip to main content." JAWS reads that correctly as the noun 
"content" with the accent on the first syllable. That wording was much 
more meaningful to participants than "skip navigation."

Nick
I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since he uses 
Jaws screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I 
was observing as how we in the profession were trying to make things 
easier for people using other devices than a browser to use the web.

“For example, one of the things we’re increasingly doing these days is 
having a ‘skip to content’ link at the top of the page.  In many cases 
it’s only visible to screen readers.”

Then he floored me.  He said “oh yes!  I’ve seen those.” (interesting 
turn of phrase from a guy who’s been blind since birth) “but what are 
they for? I’ve never used them because I don't know what they do.”

The point is,  he didn’t know what the skip-to-content link was for 
and therefore he wouldn’t use it, lest he find himself a long way away 
from where he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble getting 
back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in the link 
itself.   Perhaps instead of “skip to content’ we need to have the 
link say “skip to the content of this page” or somesuch.    A blind 
reader will hear Jaws say “VISITED LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT”  and 
thinking about it, it isn’t totally obvious what that does.
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Damian Sweeney]

Actually, you can help people, by using a phrase that is pronounced 
as intended like 'skip to main content':

http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0304-observing.html
Damian

I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since he uses 
Jaws screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I 
was observing as how we in the profession were trying to make things 
easier for people using other devices than a browser to use the web.

"For example, one of the things we're increasingly doing these days 
is having a 'skip to content' link at the top of the page.  In many 
cases it's only visible to screen readers."

Then he floored me.  He said "oh yes!  I've seen those." 
(interesting turn of phrase from a guy who's been blind since birth) 
"but what are they for? I've never used them because I don't know 
what they do."


The point is,  he didn't know what the skip-to-content link was for 
and therefore he wouldn't use it, lest he find himself a long way 
away from where he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble 
getting back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in 
the link itself.   Perhaps instead of "skip to content' we need to 
have the link say "skip to the content of this page" or somesuch. 
A blind reader will hear Jaws say "VISITED LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT" 
and thinking about it, it isn't totally obvious what that does.

Cheers
Mike Kear
AFP Webworks
Windsor, NSW, Australia
http://afpwebworks.com
.com, .net, .org etc domains start at A$20/year

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

"nice sounding" ways to present accesskeys to screenreader users (was Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...)

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Ted Drake wrote:
> Here's something else I noticed, I use teh [s} to signify the access
> key. It looks stupid in fangs, openbracket s close bracket which is what
> Jaws would do. So, I think I'm going to change it to "Access Key = S"
Don't forget that a lot of JAWS' output depends on the user's chosen 
verbosity settings. Don't take fangs' - or any other tool's - output to 
be the most accurate representation of how real screenreader users would 
experience your site.
In an ideal world, screenreaders would tap into the markup (or whatever 
the web browsers makes available - in many cases even the complete DOM) 
and expose them to the user in a sensible manner...and, surprise 
surprise,many of them already do. Again possibly dependent on specific 
user settings, JAWS will announce accesskeys based on the accesskey 
attribute. No need to make it doubly explicit in things like the link 
title (for screenreader users , anyway; those who don't have a 
screenreader, but could benefit from accesskeys - e.g. users with 
mobility impairments, or in many cases *all* users that frequent the 
site regularly and could do with smarter ways to go about their business 
in a more efficient manner - will still need some mechanism that exposes 
the accesskey to them...CSS-generated content, for instance.

Patrick H. Lauke
p.s.: this should really be a new thread...
--
_
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
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Ted Drake]

In one 
of the accessibility forums that I attended, it was suggested we use skip to 
main content instead of content. Some screen readers will read content with the 
inflection that it will bring you happiness and a sense of content rather than 
give you content. 
 
I do 
like your idea of being more descriptive. Our link is hidden anyways, so why not 
give them more information.
 
Here's 
something else I noticed, I use teh [s} to signify the access key. It looks 
stupid in fangs, openbracket s close bracket which is what Jaws would do. So, I 
think I'm going to change it to "Access Key = S" 
 
Any 
ideas?
 
Ted
www.csatravelprotection.com
 

  -Original Message-From: Michael Kear 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 
  3:18 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [WSG] 
  Sometimes you just cant help people ...
  
  I was talking to a blind friend 
  over the weekend,  and since he uses Jaws screen reading software, the 
  subject of web sites came up.   I was observing as how we in the 
  profession were trying to make things easier for people using other devices 
  than a browser to use the web. 
   
  “For example, one of the things 
  we’re increasingly doing these days is having a ‘skip to content’ link at the 
  top of the page.  In many cases it’s only visible to screen 
  readers.”
   
  Then he floored me.  He said 
  “oh yes!  I’ve seen those.” (interesting turn of phrase from a guy who’s 
  been blind since birth) “but what are they for? I’ve never used them because I 
  don't know what they do.”
   
   
   
  The point is,  he didn’t know 
  what the skip-to-content link was for and therefore he wouldn’t use it, lest 
  he find himself a long way away from where he wanted to go (the content) and 
  then have trouble getting back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit 
  more expansive in the link itself.   Perhaps instead of “skip to 
  content’ we need to have the link say “skip to the content of this page” or 
  somesuch.    A blind reader will hear Jaws say “VISITED LINK.: 
  SKIP TO CONTENT”  and thinking about it, it isn’t totally obvious what 
  that does. 
   
   
  Cheers
  Mike Kear
  AFP Webworks
  Windsor, NSW, 
  Australia
  http://afpwebworks.com
  .com, .net, .org etc domains start 
  at A$20/year
   

Re: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Hill, Tim wrote:
 I believe as more sites take
this approach on board, it will become more prevalent to these users of
what the links do. 
I'd agree with that. Additional two points:
- even if the user doesn't understand what they are, and decides to skip 
them (no pun intended), it doesn't significantly degrade their user 
experience compared to other sites; what I'm trying to say is: it's a 
bonus, an extra feature, icing on the cake that many large sites don't 
necessarily have yet...but it's not an essential part. Even if the user 
ignores it, the site remains as usable as the one without skip links;
- be careful not to take the comment of a single user to signify a whole 
section of the audience; of course, it's a comment we need to take on 
board, but it can only be a truly useful comment that actually 
dramatically influences our design decisions if an overwhelming number 
of users make it - in the same way that we wouldn't necessarily take any 
single sighted user's comments as an imperative (hey, I don't like 
navigation on the left, but I prefer it on the top).

That's not to say that it's not an interesting observation. Just to 
clarify: I'm not trying to belittle the original thread starter's 
message...just playing devil's advocate and making sure this doesn't 
cause a knee-jerk wave from less pragmatic developers.

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
**
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] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Hill, Tim]

'skip to content' versus 'skip to content of this page'?

Hmm, I'm not so sure, sounds pretty obvious to me. Skip links should be
as short as possible, because they get consistently read when a user
visits a page with screen reading software. I believe as more sites take
this approach on board, it will become more prevalent to these users of
what the links do. 
 

Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 

 

 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Kear
Sent: Thursday, 25 November 2004 10:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        Subject: [WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...



I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since he
uses Jaws screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I
was observing as how we in the profession were trying to make things
easier for people using other devices than a browser to use the web. 

 

"For example, one of the things we're increasingly doing these
days is having a 'skip to content' link at the top of the page.  In many
cases it's only visible to screen readers."

 

Then he floored me.  He said "oh yes!  I've seen those."
(interesting turn of phrase from a guy who's been blind since birth)
"but what are they for? I've never used them because I don't know what
they do."

 

 

 

The point is,  he didn't know what the skip-to-content link was
for and therefore he wouldn't use it, lest he find himself a long way
away from where he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble
getting back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in the
link itself.   Perhaps instead of "skip to content' we need to have the
link say "skip to the content of this page" or some such.A blind
reader will hear Jaws say "VISITED LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT"  and thinking
about it, it isn't totally obvious what that does. 

 

 

Cheers

Mike Kear

AFP Webworks

Windsor, NSW, Australia

http://afpwebworks.com

.com, .net, .org etc domains start at A$20/year

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Sometimes you just cant help people ...

[Michael Kear]

I was talking to a blind friend over the weekend,  and since
he uses Jaws screen reading software, the subject of web sites came up.   I was
observing as how we in the profession were trying to make things easier for
people using other devices than a browser to use the web. 

 

“For example, one of the things we’re
increasingly doing these days is having a ‘skip to content’ link at
the top of the page.  In many cases it’s only visible to screen readers.”

 

Then he floored me.  He said “oh yes!  I’ve seen
those.” (interesting turn of phrase from a guy who’s been blind
since birth) “but what are they for? I’ve never used them because I
don't know what they do.”

 

 

 

The point is,  he didn’t know what the skip-to-content
link was for and therefore he wouldn’t use it, lest he find himself a
long way away from where he wanted to go (the content) and then have trouble getting
back again.   Perhaps we need to be a bit more expansive in the link itself.  
Perhaps instead of “skip to content’ we need to have the link say “skip
to the content of this page” or somesuch.    A blind reader will hear Jaws
say “VISITED LINK.: SKIP TO CONTENT”  and thinking about it, it isn’t
totally obvious what that does. 

 

 

Cheers

Mike Kear

AFP Webworks

Windsor, NSW, Australia

http://afpwebworks.com

.com, .net, .org etc domains start at A$20/year