There is no right or wrong. There are the two basic arguments.
After doing *allot* of reading last night, both here, on other lists, and in other forums such as Accessify Forum (01), I see that there are indeed valid arguments to support both approaches. I thought this might be the case, but wanted to hear from some of you who had already been involved in such a decision and I appreciate the feedback.
NAV AFTER * theoretically better for Search Engine Optimisation (as the content is at the top)
I was aware that moving relevant content to the top of the page could improve search engine rankings, which is, of course, a plus for the content first option from a business goals perspective. From a user's perspective, having the content first let's them get right into the meat of the page without have to bypass allot of links or second-tier information such as newsletter sign ups or "featured partner" fluff they may not need at that moment.
NAV BEFORE * theoretically better for blind users (it is easier for blind users to navigate with the nav at the top and only read content when they need to)
It seems more probable to me that a user would want to read the content on a page first and then use the navigation to move to another section. The first page of a site or the first page the user hits, may be an exception to this, but in general even well sighted users ignore the navigation until we need to use it--it's there, but we don't read through it with every page hit. If that is the most common case, then placing the content first makes good sense. I have, however, read some screen reader users have developed a habit of jumping to the bottom of a page and find it generally easer to work their way up the page. I wonder if they do this to avoid lengthy navigation systems?
* theoretically better for text based browsers, and browsers that have little or no css support (so users can navigate pages easily without scroll to nav each time)
When I initially approached this issue, I was looking at it from an older browser or CSS disabled perspective. I wanted to make sure our site was at least usable in something like NN 4. I developed the CSS and the markup, so I could keep the navigation first or nearly first in the source order, but position it visually where I wanted. The more I chewed on it the more I became convinced that the real need was to improve usability for visually impaired users.
The problems with all these theories are that it all comes down to personal preference. Some people using screen readers or non-css browsers may prefer browsing pages with the nav at the top and others may not.
I suppose things like this are a personal preference, but will likely standardize more as we become more consistent with our implementation of accessibility aids. Right now I bet it is tough for visually impaired users to deal with the inconsistencies between sites.
IS THERE A SOLUTION? Some people forget that accessibility is in some ways a subset of usability. The key to usability is not based on theories, but testing with real audiences.
So, rather that decide on source ordering for your site based on someone's theory, it may be better to look into your target audiences, choose some people that fit the demographic and then go and test some options on these people. It's always good to include people who use older devices or screen readers in the mix if possible.
Unfortunately, we don't have any solid demographics to study and no available user base to work with. If I had to make an educated guess, I would stand firmly on assumption that very few blind users will ever be interested in what our site or organization has to offer and this would probably be a mistake on my part. We deal mainly with healthcare dictation and charge capture on mobile devices and our primary audience includes healthcare providers, healthcare administrators, and third-party work flow solution providers. There may, however, be some visually impaired visitors, and this is where the realistic need to address the issue crops up. In the end, though, I don't want to guess at what my audience's needs in this area may be and instead choose to offer as many aids as possible should there be a necessity. It is also a learning experience should I ever need to address content for a visually impaired audience.
I am also looking into accessibility forums outside the realm of Web development. I'm trying to find groups of visually impaired Web users who are interested in contributing information and feedback as to how they use the Internet and what they find to be most useful and most impeding.
From the people I have watched or spoken to, the most important thing is not source order but SITE CONSISTENCY - meaning that the source order, visual nav position etc remain constant across all pages. This is vital for blind users and people with cognitive impairment, who can be thrown easily by changing systems on different pages.
When I visit a site, I expect navigational elements to be clearly positioned and marked in what I consider a "normal" fashion. I don't want to have to eyeball the page for more than a few seconds to determine where the navigation is and what my options may be. I also want to see the navigation in basically the same place on every page of the site. If I find the navigation, made up of only cryptic symbols or graphics, in the bottom right corner of the page, the first question I would ask myself is: why on earth would anyone considered this a good idea? I assume visually impaired people have the same or similar thought processes and appreciate consistency.
* provide visible skip links that allow users to jump to the content (if nav first) or nav (if content first). The wording for skip links has been hotly debated on this list before, so look through WSG mail archives for the best fit for you.
I've already made a basic decision on how I might approach this. After digging through as many resources as I could last night and this morning I think the following average layout would work well.
[Headings as Necessary] [Skip to Main Navigation Link] [Skip to Site Map Link] [Current Page Navigation as Necessary] [Main Content] [Site Navigation] [Skip to Main Content Link] [Footer Information]
I'm sure I will tweak this as I move forward, but now I at least have a somewhat better understanding of how I should proceed. Thanks to everyone for your comments.
-- Best regards, Michael Wilson
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
