Nothing's wrong with putting your nav at the bottom of your source.
Actually I think its a rather good idea!
People using screen readers dont want to bombarded with the same set
of links each time they visit a new page. Thats why the whole skip to
content thing came about...so users with screen
Hi Ian,
I dont think its a massive issue to do that (put the navigation at the end of the source and position it at the top of the page visually). Theres probably some people that would say this is potentially better for screenreaders, in that they aren't confronted with a massive navigation
y see anything wrong with it.
I suppose it all comes down to user preference really.
---Original Message---
From: Peter Ottery
Date: 06/23/05 19:34:50
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
Hi Ian,
I dont think its a massive issue to do that (put the n
Ask your client ...
What is more important to you, getting a high ranking on a search engine
so potential customers (who may or may not become a real customer) are able
to find the site, or keeping the customers you already have by offering
site navigation that is easy to locate and use?
Darren Wood wrote:
Moving your nav to the bottom of your structure removes the need for a
skip to content...
But, conversely, can create the need for a skip to navigation link
before the content. Both solutions have pros and cons.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
indeed.
if i used a screen reader I'd rather see:
* Skip To Main Content
* Skip To Navigation
than
* Skip To Main Content
* Home
* Tradeshows
* Cutomer Service
* Corporate Information
* Contact Us
* Request Catalog
* Download Forms
* Order Tracking
The technique is called reverse source order, and yes in theory it does
improve your ranking in SERP's because content laden words appear at
the top of the page. It also means the first screenful in a text only
browser is content.
I've been using this technique for over two years now, and if
: 06/23/05 20:22:31
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
The technique is called reverse source order, and yes in theory it does
improve your ranking in SERP's because content laden words appear at
the top of the page. It also means the first
On 6/24/05, Dennis Lapcewich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is more important to you, getting a high ranking on a search engine
so potential customers (who may or may not become a real customer) are able
to find the site, or keeping the customers you already have by offering
site navigation
Erica Jean wrote:
And neither link would nessicarily have to show up on your finished page
if you style them with display:none;. It would be there for the sole
purpose of users with screen readers.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind users with limited mobility who cannot use
a mouse and
Of Erica
JeanSent: Friday, 24 June 2005 10:48 AMTo:
wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Page structure -
navigation
Actually, the site I read said the link should read "Skip tothe
main content."
Whole thing.
Because otherwise (f
correct, but simply including the word 'main' is enough... 'skip to' is
optional. main content is pronounced correctly.
Studies (sorry, can't find the url, but think it came via Joe Clark)
have shown that a lot of screen reader users don't understand the
concept of 'skip to' and consequently
display:none makes the link invisible in some screen readers, the
off-left method is better solution for hiding content in the visual
design intended for screen reader/keyboard users.
Example:
// remove from visual design
.hide {
position:absolute;
left: -px;
}
// show to
On 6/23/05 6:32 PM Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this out:
Studies (sorry, can't find the url, but think it came via Joe Clark)
have shown that a lot of screen reader users don't understand the
concept of 'skip to' and consequently ignore those links.
Is there something wrong with go
] Page structure - navigation
correct, but simply including the word 'main' is enough... 'skip to' is
optional. "main content" is pronounced correctly.
Studies (sorry, can't find the url, but think it came via Joe Clark)
have shown that a lot of screen reader users don't understand t
Rick Faaberg wrote:
Is there something wrong with go to whatever section?
One could argue that the go to is already implied by the fact that
it's a link. But I'd agree that, if I had to choose between skip and go,
I'd go with the latter because of its greater clarity.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
Rick Faaberg wrote:
Is there something wrong with go to whatever section?
It's been said that go to could imply to someone using a screen
reader that the link will take them to another page. You might prefer
to say Go to ... on this page.
Joe Clark had an entry in Axxlog a while back
17 matches
Mail list logo
