Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
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 readers could skip to the content - which is the most important thing about a site, surely? Moving your nav to the bottom of your structure removes the need for a skip to content... I don't know - thats just what I've picked up over time. Cheers Darren http://www.dontcom.com On 6/24/05, Ian Main [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning group, I have a question regarding page structure and hierarchal order. I have a client who insists making me place the site's navigation at the bottom of the page structure and than positioning it at the top via CSS. His reasons of doing this is for search engine optimisation? Quite frankly, this doesn't make sense to me as I thought indexing the site's pages is pretty important stuff. Also explaining the issue about screen readers and CSS off didn't persuade is discussion. Does anyone have any links to this subject or help me explain to him the right way of doing this? P.S. Hope this isn't off topic, I'm asking help on page structure not SEO. Thanks guys, Ian Main http://www.e-lusion.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 ** ** 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] Page structure - navigation
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 listat the topofevery page load (if you have a massive navigation list and no 'skip to content' link). on a kinda related note - whenwe designed http://www.smh.com.au/we decided to put the left hand navigation last in the source order (although there is still some ad tag and site stat stuff after it) so that the center column would load first - hopefully speeding up the load time over dialup of the content you want to read. there were never any problems or concerns that came from that decision. the search engine optimisation argument probably does have some weight behind it - in that if your content is higher up the page (above a load of navigation code) then you may be index'd better than a very similar site that had its content lower in the source. thats starting to split hairs though - and to a large extent not worth worrying about too much - in my opinion anyway :) pete ottery On 6/24/05, Ian Main [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning group,I have a question regarding page structure and hierarchal order.I have a client who insists making me place the site's navigation at the bottom of the page structure and than positioning it at the top via CSS.His reasons of doing this is for search engine optimisation?Quite frankly, this doesn't make sense to me as I thought indexing the site's pages is pretty important stuff. Also explaining the issue aboutscreen readers and CSS off didn't persuade is discussion.Does anyone have any links to this subject or help me explain to him theright way of doing this? P.S. Hope this isn't off topic, I'm asking help on page structure not SEO.Thanks guys,Ian Mainhttp://www.e-lusion.com** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
Of course, as far as the "skip to content" linkgoes - you might want to add a "Skip to main menu" link in the source for screen readers above the content as well.:) But I actually put my menus at the bottom of the source code on my sites too. So I don't nessicarily 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 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 listat the topofevery page load (if you have a massive navigation list and no 'skip to content' link). on a kinda related note - whenwe designed http://www.smh.com.au/we decided to put the left hand navigation last in the source order (although there is still some ad tag and site stat stuff after it) so that the center column would load first - hopefully speeding up the load time over dialup of the content you want to read. there were never any problems or concerns that came from that decision. the search engine optimisation argument probably does have some weight behind it - in that if your content is higher up the page (above a load of navigation code) then you may be index'd better than a very similar site that had its content lower in the source. thats starting to split hairs though - and to a large extent not worth worrying about too much - in my opinion anyway :) pete ottery On 6/24/05, Ian Main [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good morning group,I have a question regarding page structure and hierarchal order.I have a client who insists making me place the site's navigation at the bottom of the page structure and than positioning it at the top via CSS.His reasons of doing this is for search engine optimisation?Quite frankly, this doesn't make sense to me as I thought indexing thesite's pages is pretty important stuff. Also explaining the issue aboutscreen readers and CSS off didn't persuade is discussion.Does anyone have any links to this subject or help me explain to him theright way of doing this? P.S. Hope this isn't off topic, I'm asking help on page structure not SEO.Thanks guys,Ian Mainhttp://www.e-lusion.com** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
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? Your question is not a web technical issue. It's a basic common sense business issue. Anyone who has passed Marketing 101 should know that keeping the customers you have, and keeping them happy is a Prime Directive. It's ten times harder to bring back a customer you had but lost, rather than find a new customer. Technically you can have both by absolute positioning. The actual navigation content sits at the bottom of the page, but CSS places it at the top of the rendered page. I have a client who insists making me place the site's navigation at the bottom of the page structure and than positioning it at the top via CSS. His reasons of doing this is for search engine optimisation? ** 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] Page structure - navigation
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 __ 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Page structure - navigation
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 But I guess it boils down to personal pref. D On 6/24/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 __ 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] 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 screenful in a text only browser is content. I've been using this technique for over two years now, and if you position your navigation with CSS nobody can tell the difference. You don't need skip links, but you can code them in if you want, drop the skip to because it doesn't really make sense and add menu, as it is slightly more universally understood than navigation: * Main Content * Navigation Menu regards Terrence Wood. On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:56 AM, Darren Wood wrote: indeed. if i used a screen reader I'd rather see: * Skip To Main Content * Skip To Navigation ** 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] Page structure - navigation
Actually, the site I read said the link should read "Skip tothe main content." Whole thing. Because otherwise (from what I understood) if it isnt' written out that way, the screen reader pronounces content wrong. It pronouncesit like the verb... the dog was content. 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. I would use: Skip tothe main content. Skip to the navigation menu. ---Original Message--- From: Terrence Wood Date: 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 screenful in a text only browser is content. I've been using this technique for over two years now, and if you position your navigation with CSS nobody can tell the difference. You don't need skip links, but you can code them in if you want, drop the "skip to" because it doesn't really make sense and add menu, as it is slightly more universally understood than navigation: * Main Content * Navigation Menu regards Terrence Wood. On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:56 AM, Darren Wood wrote: indeed. if i used a screen reader I'd rather see: * Skip To Main Content * Skip To Navigation ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
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 that is easy to locate and use? The client is requesting that the navigation be placed at the bottom of the *source code* and then positioned at the visual top of the page using absolute positioning - so there is no usability issue. It's a technique I use a lot, for search engine optimisation and accessibility reasons, and there's absolutely no problem with it. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.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] Page structure - 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 therefore rely on keyboard input, who benefit just as much from those links (as it saves them the same tedious tabbing). They should ideally see that these links are present. -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Page structure - navigation
I tend to agree. Navigation should come first with a skip link to content, OR content before naviagation but with a skip link to navigation. The display:none technique is pretty much the norm now for this screen reader issue. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 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 (from what I understood) if it isnt' written out that way, the screen reader pronounces content wrong. It pronouncesit like the verb... the dog was content. 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. I would use: Skip tothe main content. Skip to the navigation menu. ---Original Message--- From: Terrence Wood Date: 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 screenful in a text only browser is content. I've been using this technique for over two years now, and if you position your navigation with CSS nobody can tell the difference. You don't need skip links, but you can code them in if you want, drop the "skip to" because it doesn't really make sense and add menu, as it is slightly more universally understood than navigation: * Main Content * Navigation Menu regards Terrence Wood. On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:56 AM, Darren Wood wrote: indeed. if i used a screen reader I'd rather see: * Skip To Main Content * Skip To Navigation ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] 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 the concept of 'skip to' and consequently ignore those links. regards Terrence Wood. On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:47 PM, Erica Jean wrote: Actually, the site I read said the link should read Skip to the main content. Whole thing. Because otherwise (from what I understood) if it isnt' written out that way, the screen reader pronounces content wrong. It pronounces it like the verb.. the dog was content. ** 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] Page structure - navigation
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 keyboard users
.hide:focus {
left: 0;
}
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 24 Jun 2005, at 1:12 PM, Webmaster wrote:
The display:none technique is pretty much the norm now for this screen
reader issue.
**
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] Page structure - navigation
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 to whatever section? Rick Faaberg ** 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] Page structure - navigation
Oh well that's interesting. You learn something new everyday ;) And that just goes to show you can't always trust what someone says on a website.;) ---Original Message--- From: Terrence Wood Date: 06/23/05 21:35:27 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Terrence Wood Subject: Re: [WSG] 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 the concept of 'skip to' and consequently ignore those links. regards Terrence Wood. On 24 Jun 2005, at 12:47 PM, Erica Jean wrote: Actually, the site I read said the link should read "Skip to the main content." Whole thing. Because otherwise (from what I understood) if it isnt' written out that way, the screen reader pronounces content wrong. It pronounces it like the verb.. the dog was content. ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Page structure - navigation
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 __ 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] Page structure - navigation
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 that discussed the terminology Skip to - that might be what Terrence was talking about. http://axxlog.wordpress.net/archives/2004/05/28/web-items/ Joe writes (of screen reader users in an accessibility presentation): ~~ Most did not know about the link - “skip navigation” is jargon - “skip to content” Jaws mispronounces - “skip to main content” seems best ~~ I think we have discussed this here before(?) and many decided Jump to was a good compromise while still implying the link moves the user to another place on the current page. Simply putting Main content might be confusing. Users might wonder if it meant the main content of the site as a whole and if the page they were viewing merely contained peripheral info. Vicki. :-) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
