Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
I dont seem to get any of the flicking effects that everyone is talking about. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.8 William Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Tee G. Peng wrote: teesworks.com/ Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. If I, the site builder, find it annoying, what will the users find ? As a user I find that kind of visual flicker highly annoying. I am beginning to think this is causing a usability issue and is killing all other usable elements that I work so hard to try to get them right. A 'Skip to content' link may have its uses, but I don't see much need for one in that design - too few links to skip (at least in that dev page). Basic accessibility is too hard to sell anyway, and I don't see the point in annoying clients and/or the majority of users with such minor issues when there are so many other practical issues to take care of and spend dev-time on. Personally I don't provide skip to (whatever) links in a design unless there's a client-request for them, and then I style them without any flicker effects. regards Georg *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
on the topic of skip links and semantic styling, and to add to the mix of usability, accessibility and getting into the habit of best practice, Accessibility is not just for the impaired, it is also for people who access through different devices where CSS has not been styled to suite what is being looked at. I know that mobile isn't a big thing right now, however it is gaining pace and there are more internet enabled mobile devices than there are desktop computers. food for thought William Tee G. Peng wrote: On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Stuart Foulstone wrote: But the point is that, this accessibility feature is for people who can't use a mouse - i.e. they cannot click anywhere. Ah yah right A good point you have made. I am a 'mouse' user, and I do find skip to (content/navigation) useful for me. Now you pointed out ( John and other did too but I was blind :) ), makes me realized I was mainly viewing this feature from my own' benefit. Glad that I asked. Sometimes one has to show one's ignorance so one can learn something important :) tee *** 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:56 AM, willdonovan wrote: I dont seem to get any of the flicking effects that everyone is talking about. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.8 Hi William, thanks for checking. It was eliminated :) This site has something similar to what I did - I think I must have gotten the idea from it ；） http://www.themaninblue.com/ tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
I agree with you: the 'hover' technique is way more annoying, and
it will annoy way more people.
Thanks all for your response. I now can clearly see I got myself
carried away by my 'try-to-do-thing-right' little obsession :)
Ok, three of you said skip to content is of little use in this site,
but if I still want to keep it (and able to keep client happy), I
suppose this won't upset users right?
#skip_nav a {display: block;padding: 0.35em;text-indent: -200em;text-
decoration: none;}
John said don't use display:block. Actually the very reason I used it
is because I want a user able to click on any area of the top. Is
this as bad as the annoying hover effect?
Georg, can you kindly take a look on IE6? The horizontal menu
doesn't load smoothly, when the page is fully loaded, the header's
part reloads, I suspect it has to do with the clear both class yet I
can't figure a fix for IE (tried all tricks from hasLayout)
div id=header
h1 id=logobackground image spanxxx/span/h1
div id=header_search/div
div class=clear !-- without clear:both the horizontal menu
moves up, sits below the search field --/div
div id=menu
liHome/li
lixxx/li
/ul
/div
div class=clear !-- the gray background won't show up without
clearing --/div
/div
#logo {float: left}
#header search {float:right}
#menu{background:#f3f3f3;width:100%;margin-top:0}
.clear {height:0;clear:both}
IEs show a 6px to 8px gap between h1 logo and the menu., so I have
margin-top: -6px for IEs. my guess is the clear class causing it.
It works except that in IE 6, as described, the header reloads after
the page fully loaded.
Thanks!
tee
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Hi! Tee G. Peng skrev: Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have 'skip to content' I use to do it the other way around, having the content first in source and using a link to get to the navigation. And then I simply put a link to the menu, not anything about skipping (all normal links tells you where they go, not where they don't go). Example: http://treemenu.nornix.com/ It's the first link on the page. Could be styled more like a heading or something. In this case there's also a little bit JavaScript magic in the link ... /andersN *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
But the point is that, this accessibility feature is for people who can't use a mouse - i.e. they cannot click anywhere. On Sun, October 28, 2007 6:46 am, Tee G. Peng wrote: John said don't use display:block. Actually the very reason I used it is because I want a user able to click on any area of the top. Is this as bad as the annoying hover effect? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
On Oct 28, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Stuart Foulstone wrote: But the point is that, this accessibility feature is for people who can't use a mouse - i.e. they cannot click anywhere. Ah yah right A good point you have made. I am a 'mouse' user, and I do find skip to (content/navigation) useful for me. Now you pointed out ( John and other did too but I was blind :) ), makes me realized I was mainly viewing this feature from my own' benefit. Glad that I asked. Sometimes one has to show one's ignorance so one can learn something important :) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Stuart Foulstone wrote: But the point is that, this accessibility feature is for people who can't use a mouse - i.e. they cannot click anywhere. In general parlance, click has become the general term for activate. Keyboard users won't walk away offended by the use of that term (just the same way that, for instance, a blind colleague I used to work with generally used the phrase see you later). 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: A compromise solution I have used: when a client doesn't want them, hide them (position them of screen, not display:none), but make them visible when those links are focussed (by pressing the tab key). Yup, I've used that approach on www.salford.ac.uk and it works reasonably well. 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Most disabled users, particularly sight impaired, will use your header markup to navigate the page rather than skip links Really? How will they do that? And what makes you believe that this is the case? ...an accessible browser like Firefox which allows them to display a header list... No it doesn't. There is probably an extension that does this, but in my experience Firefox is used even less commonly by people with disabilities than it is by fully able users. I suspect that more people use keyboard navigation or keyboard equivalents than use screen readers, and a 'skip to contents' link is helpful for them. Even if they are using a user agent that uses headers for navigation, a 'skip to content' link saves several clicks, which is important for people with limited mobility. Steve Hi Tee, I appreciate your desire to provide navigational accessibility for disabled users however Skip to content is not the best way to do it. Most disabled users, particularly sight impaired, will use your header markup to navigate the page rather than skip links. Most often the audience who need the skip nav functionality will be using an accessible browser like Firefox which allows them to display a header list whereby they can easily surf through a properly structured page which makes use of header tags. You've done a fairly good job on the teesworks page using header tags so the skip to content link is not going to serve much purpose. Also keep in mind that display:none and visibility:hidden remove content from screen readers. A screen reader will not pick up elements styled like that so unless that's your purpose, don't use those kinds of rules in your CSS for markup you intend for a screen reader. Nice page btw. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** Campus Accessibility Liaison *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
On Sun, October 28, 2007 6:38 pm, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Stuart Foulstone wrote: But the point is that, this accessibility feature is for people who can't use a mouse - i.e. they cannot click anywhere. In general parlance, click has become the general term for activate. Keyboard users won't walk away offended by the use of that term (just the same way that, for instance, a blind colleague I used to work with generally used the phrase see you later). P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ That may well be true, but irrelevant to this discussion. Tee was enlarging the clickable area of a skip to content link with the intention of making it easier to use. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Georg, thank you so much! IE6 displayed correctly except the header problem I wrote. I did a lot of tweaking in the main stylesheet after my post , and didn't get to check on IE6. You saw the 'wrong version' :), but I notice the header's reloads disappered now the right column sits below the left. this makes me rethink maybe the mini-cart that has negative margin top causing (I ruled this out before), or the auto-expansion. Thanks for the advice on hasLayout tricks. I will give it more thought next time I tempt to use again. A fixed-width approach will _just work_ in all browsers, and make it much easier to get IE6 to behave like a browser. I need to accommodate 800px screen for a very specific reason, but this layout doesn't look good (especially in product page) in 800px. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Stuart Foulstone wrote: That may well be true, but irrelevant to this discussion. Tee was enlarging the clickable area of a skip to content link with the intention of making it easier to use. oops, right you are. must stop reading emails out of context and jumping at things. apologies, 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Tee G. Peng wrote:
... so I came out with this technique:
teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result).
Haven't show it to client yet. Been working on this site in the
last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise'
everytime the hover pops up. There is no way to miss it everytime I
move the cursor to the top.
I agree with you: the 'hover' technique is way more annoying, and it
will annoy way more people.
'skip links' should be visible all the time, as they are useful for
sighted users (e.g using the keyboard).
A compromise solution I have used: when a client doesn't want them,
hide them (position them of screen, not display:none), but make them
visible when those links are focussed (by pressing the tab key).
a.skiplinks {position:absolute; left: -999em;}
a.skiplinks:focus,
a.skiplinks:active {left: 1em;}
:active state is for iExploder. Add additional styling to taste.
Not really perfect, just a compromise.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. There is no way to miss it everytime I move the cursor to the top. Leaving aside considerations as to whether you should actually be bothering after the client has explicity requested it not be implemented, if you're looking for a more unobtrusive option, don't make the link display: block, just let the link text area be clickable. After all, with this method, you're not really expecting any mouse user to find it, so increasing the clickable area is a bit pointless. Also, don't change the background-color; just make the link text appear. -- 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] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
At 7:44 PM -0700 10/27/07, Tee G. Peng wrote: I am having an issue and I can't seem to see the whole picture objectively. Thanks to your influences, it has become my second nature to have 'skip to content' in every site I do (sites I have control over the design and layout); when I do markup coding, clients often ignore the 'skip to content' and 'skip to nav' - I managed to convinced them a couple times with a compromise to hide it from browsers by using 'display:none', because, according to them, only screen users need 'skip to content'. I am doing a site that I have control on design and layout, client asked to remove the 'skip to content' when I showed him the first layout, I tried to talk him out by stating how important it is to have the 'skip to content' implemented. He didn't buy it, so I came out with this technique: teesworks.com/ (move your mouse to the top to see the result). Hi Tee, I appreciate your desire to provide navigational accessibility for disabled users however Skip to content is not the best way to do it. Most disabled users, particularly sight impaired, will use your header markup to navigate the page rather than skip links. Most often the audience who need the skip nav functionality will be using an accessible browser like Firefox which allows them to display a header list whereby they can easily surf through a properly structured page which makes use of header tags. You've done a fairly good job on the teesworks page using header tags so the skip to content link is not going to serve much purpose. Also keep in mind that display:none and visibility:hidden remove content from screen readers. A screen reader will not pick up elements styled like that so unless that's your purpose, don't use those kinds of rules in your CSS for markup you intend for a screen reader. Nice page btw. -Tim -- Tim Offenstein *** Campus Accessibility Liaison *** (217) 244-2700 CITES Departmental Services *** www.uiuc.edu/goto/offenstein *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] skip to content: care of accessibility causing usability
Tee G. Peng wrote: teesworks.com/ Been working on this site in the last 2 days, I find that I am getting so annoyed by the surprise' everytime the hover pops up. If I, the site builder, find it annoying, what will the users find ? As a user I find that kind of visual flicker highly annoying. I am beginning to think this is causing a usability issue and is killing all other usable elements that I work so hard to try to get them right. A 'Skip to content' link may have its uses, but I don't see much need for one in that design - too few links to skip (at least in that dev page). Basic accessibility is too hard to sell anyway, and I don't see the point in annoying clients and/or the majority of users with such minor issues when there are so many other practical issues to take care of and spend dev-time on. Personally I don't provide skip to (whatever) links in a design unless there's a client-request for them, and then I style them without any flicker effects. 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] Skip to Content?
On 04-Jul-07, at 9:29 PM, Sander Aarts wrote: Angel Martin Alganza schreef: On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:19:51PM +0200, Sander Aarts wrote: I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb if it's not to close to the skip link menu. I place the links in order of importance (content first and then navigation). Don't you need a skip 'skip links' link, then? :-) No, because then you'd probably want a skip 'skip skip links link' link as well ;-) As I said in another post in this thread I start with linking to the content and then I link to the various types and levels of navigation in order of importance. That way users can skip the skip menu quite soon (I'd say as soon as with a more regular skip to- navigation). Weighing in rather late to this discussion; hopefully this is still relevant. I think Maxdesign had a study on skip links [1] and the benefits to visually challenged users a while ago. I found the presentation rather useful, because it challenged some of my own assumptions as to how visually challenged users interact with websites. The gist of it was that 'skip to' links were perhaps less useful than structural headings, though I read through the presentation far too long ago for that to be a good summary. Best, - Rahul. [1] http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Again, referring specifically to screen reader users, my anecdotal experience supporting several users who are blind in my job is that Rahul is most of the time correct. Good structured code and Standards Based Design with proper lists, headings, and code that's not abused is more useful to these users than the ever popular Skip to Content. However, (there's always a however) we cannot forget about our users who are sighted, or as my colleague says light dependent, and cannot or should not use a mouse. Many folks with mobility impairments navigate using the TAB key and Enter. They do benefit from VISIBLE Skip Links to speed their navigation. For these folks, it's not so much about reading the information or finding a section of content, it's about getting to an interface element and activating it or some such. Skip Links can save them several whacks on the TAB key on their way to their goal. Just my 2 yen on the topic. Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies Accessible Technology Services Support (ATSS) phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages. It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing it wrong... - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru, http://www.thenoodleincident.com However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at. While there is life, there is hope. - Stephen Hawking -Original Message- deleted for space *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:19:51PM +0200, Sander Aarts wrote: I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb if it's not to close to the skip link menu. I place the links in order of importance (content first and then navigation). Don't you need a skip 'skip links' link, then? :-) -- Angel @ Granada, Spain PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key 3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591 -- () ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/ /\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Angel Martin Alganza schreef: On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:19:51PM +0200, Sander Aarts wrote: I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb if it's not to close to the skip link menu. I place the links in order of importance (content first and then navigation). Don't you need a skip 'skip links' link, then? :-) No, because then you'd probably want a skip 'skip skip links link' link as well ;-) As I said in another post in this thread I start with linking to the content and then I link to the various types and levels of navigation in order of importance. That way users can skip the skip menu quite soon (I'd say as soon as with a more regular skip to-navigation). cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
I think you missed the major point of the last reply - do you have any evidence that what you are doing _does_ make things easier for AT users? Many of the other good ideas that people have had, have been proved to be counter-productive, such as access keys that conflict with OS shortcuts. I have been told in the past that the way that AT users 'browse' a page is very different to the way that a fully sighted user does, so I am curious as to whether 'skip to' links are any use, particularly when in multiples. Regards, Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Gleitzman Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 1:08 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? On 30 Jun 2007, at 9:58 AM, Sander Aarts wrote: So you don't care at all about the cognitively challenged visitors to your site then? You're challenging me now as I don't have a clue what your talking about. How does adding 'skip links' make a site less usable/accessible for cognitively challenged people? I think that was an ironic reference to the KISS principle... Semi-ironic, perhaps. If something is too complex to understand, then adding a map rarely helps. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 7/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am curious as to whether 'skip to' links are any use, particularly when in multiples. I can't speak for AT users per se, but it sure is helpful when browsing on my mobile device (a Sony Ericsson V630i... not a PDA, so scrolling is that much more painful). -- Joshua Street http://josh.st/blog/ +61 (0) 425 808 469 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef: I think you missed the major point of the last reply - do you have any evidence that what you are doing _does_ make things easier for AT users? I base that on research done by others (I'm not a researcher). For instance http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section42 (deep link to recommendations). I have been told in the past that the way that AT users 'browse' a page is very different to the way that a fully sighted user does, so I am curious as to whether 'skip to' links are any use, particularly when in multiples. First of all, it's not all just about AT. Skip links can make things easier for any user of a text browser or device with a small screen like mobile phones. Of course AT users browse a page in a different way than avarege browser users do. Isn't that what the AT is meant for, providing a different way to browse the page? About multiple 'skip to' links... I must admit that I've not seen a test that proves it does add extra accessibility, but neither have I seen one saying it doesn't. Logic thinking tells me that if 1 or 2 'skip to' links improve accessibility, 5 or 7 will probably not make a page inaccessible. You may say that it adds extra links to step through, but in fact it does a similar thing as some ATs do as well: provide shortcuts to major parts of the page. ATs that do so use headers in the page to link to. I do a similar thing although I use far from all headers. By starting with linking to the content and putting the links to the various kinds/levels of navigation at the end of this little 'skip to' menu, the menu itself can easily be skipped for the most part as well. cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Nick Gleitzman schreef: On 30 Jun 2007, at 11:34 AM, Sander Aarts wrote: My 'skip to' menu is like a map of the page and I believe it benefits more people than it hinders. OK, your pages might be complex, and so you feel the need to provide 'road maps' for people to find their way around more easily - but if the page is so complex that you need to provide a map of the navigation and content, don't you think that maybe your page is too complicated? It suggests a review of the IA as a whole. Taken to (an admittedly illogical) extreme, you'd end up with a page, a map of skip links to explain what's there, and a map of the map to explain what's there, and... Well that's definitely not what we want! Maybe map is not the right word then as it is not to explain the page, but just for quick access to the different parts of the page. It's the other additional content I was talking about that is to explain things though (e.g navigation headers and putting (selected) after selected menu links). But these are to the design what the alt attribute is to images. A design of a page, especially a good design, provides a lot of information about the different parts of the page and their relation to one another. The additional content I add is to provide a textual alternative to the visual info/context provided by the design. cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sander Aarts Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:20 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb So you don't care at all about the cognitively challenged visitors to your site then? Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sander Aarts Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:20 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb So you don't care at all about the cognitively challenged visitors to your site then? You're challenging me now as I don't have a clue what your talking about. How does adding 'skip links' make a site less usable/accessible for cognitively challenged people? cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 30 Jun 2007, at 9:58 AM, Sander Aarts wrote: So you don't care at all about the cognitively challenged visitors to your site then? You're challenging me now as I don't have a clue what your talking about. How does adding 'skip links' make a site less usable/accessible for cognitively challenged people? I think that was an ironic reference to the KISS principle... N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Nick Gleitzman schreef: On 30 Jun 2007, at 9:58 AM, Sander Aarts wrote: So you don't care at all about the cognitively challenged visitors to your site then? You're challenging me now as I don't have a clue what your talking about. How does adding 'skip links' make a site less usable/accessible for cognitively challenged people? I think that was an ironic reference to the KISS principle... Ah, another challenge ;-) Only after a quick search I found out what you (and probably Michael as well) were refering to: Keep It Simple Stupid. I already knew the phrase, but KISS triggered some other images in my mind ;-) But what is 'simple'? A text-only website may be optimal for assistive technology like sreen readers or braille, but it is totally inaccessible for illiterate people, who are probably better served with images/animation/video. Most websites I build these days are stuffed with all sorts and levels of navigation and different types of content. I don't create the interaction or visual design myself so all I can really do is making these parts of the page as accessible as possible. Trying to achieve that, my main focus is that the content and navigation still work and make sense even if JavaScript and CSS are turned off and when the keyboard is used for navigation. Therefor I add extra info to the page which is not visible within the viewport of the browser when CSS is supported. This includes a 'skip to' menu, navigation headers and additional texts to indicate which menu links are selected. This doesn't make the document simpler, but I believe it makes it easier to comprehend. My 'skip to' menu is like a map of the page and I believe it benefits more people than it hinders. cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 30 Jun 2007, at 11:34 AM, Sander Aarts wrote: My 'skip to' menu is like a map of the page and I believe it benefits more people than it hinders. Can't argue with belief. If it works for you (but more importantly, for your visitors), go for it. But at the risk of presuming to take up Michael's pov for him, I understood him to be questioning whether making a page more complex actually improves usability. OK, your pages might be complex, and so you feel the need to provide 'road maps' for people to find their way around more easily - but if the page is so complex that you need to provide a map of the navigation and content, don't you think that maybe your page is too complicated? It suggests a review of the IA as a whole. (Granted, I have no idea of the content of your site, so I accept I'm talking in a general sense, but still...) Taken to (an admittedly illogical) extreme, you'd end up with a page, a map of skip links to explain what's there, and a map of the map to explain what's there, and... Do you do any user testing with the target group of visitors for whom you're providing this extra 'benefit' to see if it actually works for them? Or is it just your belief? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Hi, I'd still include the link (as the first link on the page) as I imagine you're still going to have other browser content before you get to your page's main content (headers, logos etc.) -- unless you want users of screenreaders to have to sit through that for every page. I'd say anything that adds to the usability of a site for any group is worth including. Also, it's very easy to hide these links from other standard browsers if you so wish, so it's not really much of an overhead to include them. Hope this helps, David On 28/06/07, Frank Palinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Just a quick question and please pardon my ignorance.. If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content, and then floated left (or right) to bring it visually next to the content in a two column manner, is it good practice to include a Skip to Content link as part of the navigation markup for users with assistive technologies? More simply put, given that the global nav is structurally situated below the content, will this preclude the use of a skip to content link? Looking forward to your comments, Kind regards, Frank *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- David Little -m: 077 6596 5655 -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Thanks David, much appreciate your feedback. That's exactly what I thought, but I'm not inclined to assume anything. As you mention, I'm experimenting with moving the skip to content link off screen with a margin-left of -em, leaving its markup intact just above the floated global nav div. Kind regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Little Sent: Thursday, 28 June, 2007 11:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? Hi, I'd still include the link (as the first link on the page) as I imagine you're still going to have other browser content before you get to your page's main content (headers, logos etc.) -- unless you want users of screenreaders to have to sit through that for every page. I'd say anything that adds to the usability of a site for any group is worth including. Also, it's very easy to hide these links from other standard browsers if you so wish, so it's not really much of an overhead to include them. Hope this helps, David On 28/06/07, Frank Palinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Just a quick question and please pardon my ignorance.. If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content, and then floated left (or right) to bring it visually next to the content in a two column manner, is it good practice to include a Skip to Content link as part of the navigation markup for users with assistive technologies? More simply put, given that the global nav is structurally situated below the content, will this preclude the use of a skip to content link? Looking forward to your comments, Kind regards, Frank *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- David Little -m: 077 6596 5655 -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** 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] Skip to Content?
On 28 Jun 2007, at 6:50 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content... Hang on - if your nav is *below* the content, wouldn't the link be better as 'skip to navigation'? N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 28/06/2007, at 7:34 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: Thanks David, much appreciate your feedback. That's exactly what I thought, but I'm not inclined to assume anything. As you mention, I'm experimenting with moving the skip to content link off screen with a margin-left of -em, leaving its markup intact just above the floated global nav div. Kind regards, Frank This is the preferred method. Using display none may actually hide content from screen readers. Usually, I set an absolute position in conjunction with a negative em margin. This will hide the element from modern, graphical browsers. If you place the accessibility links at the top of your markup, it will be one of the first elements that disabled users will view. Cheers, Tate -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Little Sent: Thursday, 28 June, 2007 11:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? Hi, I'd still include the link (as the first link on the page) as I imagine you're still going to have other browser content before you get to your page's main content (headers, logos etc.) -- unless you want users of screenreaders to have to sit through that for every page. I'd say anything that adds to the usability of a site for any group is worth including. Also, it's very easy to hide these links from other standard browsers if you so wish, so it's not really much of an overhead to include them. Hope this helps, David On 28/06/07, Frank Palinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Just a quick question and please pardon my ignorance.. If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content, and then floated left (or right) to bring it visually next to the content in a two column manner, is it good practice to include a Skip to Content link as part of the navigation markup for users with assistive technologies? More simply put, given that the global nav is structurally situated below the content, will this preclude the use of a skip to content link? Looking forward to your comments, Kind regards, Frank *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- David Little -m: 077 6596 5655 -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** 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] Skip to Content?
Is it not possible to place the navigation near to the top of your Source Code and position the navigation using CSS? That whay people who cannot use CSS will have the navigation at the top. Source Order is important for this very reason. There may be a reason to why you can't do it, but from what ive read there isn't really much to bounce off, so thats my 2 pence. On 6/28/07, Tate Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/06/2007, at 7:34 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: Thanks David, much appreciate your feedback. That's exactly what I thought, but I'm not inclined to assume anything. As you mention, I'm experimenting with moving the skip to content link off screen with a margin-left of -em, leaving its markup intact just above the floated global nav div. Kind regards, Frank This is the preferred method. Using display none may actually hide content from screen readers. Usually, I set an absolute position in conjunction with a negative em margin. This will hide the element from modern, graphical browsers. If you place the accessibility links at the top of your markup, it will be one of the first elements that disabled users will view. Cheers, Tate -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Little Sent: Thursday, 28 June, 2007 11:06 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? Hi, I'd still include the link (as the first link on the page) as I imagine you're still going to have other browser content before you get to your page's main content (headers, logos etc.) -- unless you want users of screenreaders to have to sit through that for every page. I'd say anything that adds to the usability of a site for any group is worth including. Also, it's very easy to hide these links from other standard browsers if you so wish, so it's not really much of an overhead to include them. Hope this helps, David On 28/06/07, Frank Palinkas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All, Just a quick question and please pardon my ignorance.. If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content, and then floated left (or right) to bring it visually next to the content in a two column manner, is it good practice to include a Skip to Content link as part of the navigation markup for users with assistive technologies? More simply put, given that the global nav is structurally situated below the content, will this preclude the use of a skip to content link? Looking forward to your comments, Kind regards, Frank *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- David Little -m: 077 6596 5655 -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** 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] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
What about people using screen magnification? Wouldn't it be beneficial to them to have the skip to... links available at the upper left-hand corner of the screen? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tate Johnson Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:04 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? On 28/06/2007, at 7:34 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: Thanks David, much appreciate your feedback. That's exactly what I thought, but I'm not inclined to assume anything. As you mention, I'm experimenting with moving the skip to content link off screen with a margin-left of -em, leaving its markup intact just above the floated global nav div. Kind regards, Frank This is the preferred method. Using display none may actually hide content from screen readers. Usually, I set an absolute position in conjunction with a negative em margin. This will hide the element from modern, graphical browsers. If you place the accessibility links at the top of your markup, it will be one of the first elements that disabled users will view. Cheers, Tate *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 28 Jun 2007, at 10:34, Frank Palinkas wrote: As you mention, I'm experimenting with moving the skip to content link off screen with a margin-left of -em, leaving its markup intact just above the floated global nav div. ... where keyboard users can focus it, but not see it. If you feel you must hide content from users who can see, then please bring it back into view when they point at it. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Skip to Content?
On 28 Jun 2007, at 6:50 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content... Hang on - if your nav is *below* the content, wouldn't the link be better as 'skip to navigation'? I think in this case it would be a good idea to have both links, e.g. something like: div class=skip a href=#contentSkip to content/a | a href=#navigationSkip to navigation/a /div Hiding the links as suggested via positioning. David -- David Little -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Skip to Content?
Hi All, From the feedback and very reasonable/realistic points made, I'm going to make sure that _all_ users will be able to deal with the navigation in a manner that will suit them (visible and off screen). I don't consider this a redundancy, but as professionally catering to whoever may open the page regardless of their physical condition. Thank you all for your learned comments and help. It's much appreciated. Kind regards, Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Little Sent: Thursday, 28 June, 2007 12:33 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Skip to Content? On 28 Jun 2007, at 6:50 PM, Frank Palinkas wrote: If the global site navigation on a page is marked up below the content... Hang on - if your nav is *below* the content, wouldn't the link be better as 'skip to navigation'? I think in this case it would be a good idea to have both links, e.g. something like: div class=skip a href=#contentSkip to content/a | a href=#navigationSkip to navigation/a /div Hiding the links as suggested via positioning. David -- David Little -e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -w: www.littled.net *** 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] Skip to Content?
David Little schreef: I think in this case it would be a good idea to have both links, e.g. something like: div class=skip a href=#contentSkip to content/a | a href=#navigationSkip to navigation/a /div I alway make skip links to all major parts of the page, being the different levels of navigation, main content, sub content (side bar) and sometimes even the breadcrumb if it's not to close to the skip link menu. I place the links in order of importance (content first and then navigation). cheers, Sander *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request)
Clarify the destination. So if there is more than one set of content B. otherwise A. mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk /marquee/blink -Original Message- From: john [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 October 2004 09:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request) So, what do others think? A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Damian Sweeney wrote: Regarding skip to content links, I found this article recently about usability testing of screen reader users: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0304-observing.html In particular under the 'Many want to skip the navigation, but don't use that feature' section: Some developers have used the phrase Skip to Content instead of Skip Navigation. Good idea. But it does not work because content in English can be a noun or an adjective. JAWS reads it here as an adjective with the accent on the second syllable. So it does not make sense to users. A solution that does seem to work is Skip to Main Content. JAWS reads that correctly as the noun content with the accent on the first syllable. Cheers, Damian I like it. Clean and simple. IMO, you should include a skip to content link for the screen readers. ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Daniel Bowling wrote: Hello, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my personal site regarding design, standards compliance, usability and general code quality. http://www.danbowling.com Thank you for your time, Dan Bowling W: http://www.danbowling.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 ** ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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 **
ADMIN Re: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request)
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:37:41 +0100, john wrote: A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation I think we have strayed way off topic now. Can people please direct replies directly to John? Thanks, Lea -- Lea de Groot WSG Core member ** 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] skip to content (was: Site Review Request)
Skip Navigation because it's conventional. Oh, and hello, this is my first post :) Aaron Pollock -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of john Sent: 27 October 2004 09:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request) So, what do others think? A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Damian Sweeney wrote: Regarding skip to content links, I found this article recently about usability testing of screen reader users: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0304-observing.html In particular under the 'Many want to skip the navigation, but don't use that feature' section: Some developers have used the phrase Skip to Content instead of Skip Navigation. Good idea. But it does not work because content in English can be a noun or an adjective. JAWS reads it here as an adjective with the accent on the second syllable. So it does not make sense to users. A solution that does seem to work is Skip to Main Content. JAWS reads that correctly as the noun content with the accent on the first syllable. Cheers, Damian I like it. Clean and simple. IMO, you should include a skip to content link for the screen readers. ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Daniel Bowling wrote: Hello, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my personal site regarding design, standards compliance, usability and general code quality. http://www.danbowling.com Thank you for your time, Dan Bowling W: http://www.danbowling.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: ADMIN Re: [WSG] skip to content
Lea de Groot wrote: I think we have strayed way off topic now. My apologies. I thought it was on-topic with Web standards. ~john ** 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] skip to content
john wrote: So, what do others think? A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation D. Putting content first, navigation later and a using a Skip to navigation link -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica: apariencia, experiencia y comunicación en la web. http://simplelogica.net # (+34) 985 22 12 65 escribe en Logicola http://simplelogica.net/logicola/ ** 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] skip to content
Hi Aaron, Welcome to the list. I'm about to disagree with your , please don't take it personally, it's just another POV =). skip navigation may be convention, but apparently the preference of actual screen reader users is main content or similar (based on some research I have read and user testing). The reasons are: 1. skip navigation is jargon - main content is more descriptive. 2. main content describes the destination rather than the action of following the link - the same behaviour we (should) expect when following any other link. Now onto my opinions 3. skip navigation implies a fixed source order: the navigation is first and content second. However, I don't structure my pages this way. For me skip navigation is usually skip to navigation (which describes the destination). 4. main content can appear anywhere in the source order, and anywhere in the visual design and make sense, whereas skip links sometimes seem broken/out of place in a visual design, especially when a browser doesn't have proper keyboard focussing (e.g. when you tab to a skip link the keyboard focus doesn't follow the link.) cheers ./tdw Aaron Pollock wrote: Skip Navigation because it's conventional. Oh, and hello, this is my first post :) Aaron Pollock -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of john Sent: 27 October 2004 09:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request) So, what do others think? A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation ~john ** 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] skip to content (was: Site Review Request)
While I agree with the idea of clarifying the destination, I disagree with the logic of your choice here. The pronunciation issues with A are significant enough to warrant B as the first choice. Cheers, Kevin On 27/10/04 6:48 PM, Mike Foskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clarify the destination. So if there is more than one set of content B. otherwise A. mike 2k:)2 marqueeblink e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] site: http://www.webSemantics.co.uk /marquee/blink -Original Message- From: john [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 October 2004 09:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request) So, what do others think? A. skip to content B. skip to main content C. skip navigation ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Damian Sweeney wrote: Regarding skip to content links, I found this article recently about usability testing of screen reader users: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0304-observing.html In particular under the 'Many want to skip the navigation, but don't use that feature' section: Some developers have used the phrase Skip to Content instead of Skip Navigation. Good idea. But it does not work because content in English can be a noun or an adjective. JAWS reads it here as an adjective with the accent on the second syllable. So it does not make sense to users. A solution that does seem to work is Skip to Main Content. JAWS reads that correctly as the noun content with the accent on the first syllable. Cheers, Damian I like it. Clean and simple. IMO, you should include a skip to content link for the screen readers. ~john _ Dr. Zeus Web Development http://www.DrZeus.net content without clutter Daniel Bowling wrote: Hello, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my personal site regarding design, standards compliance, usability and general code quality. http://www.danbowling.com Thank you for your time, Dan Bowling W: http://www.danbowling.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 ** ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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] skip to content (was: Site Review Request)
Return Receipt Your RE: [WSG] skip to content (was: Site Review Request) document : was Kathryn Ross/Australia/IBM received by: at: 28/10/2004 14:06:08 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
