Terrence Wood wrote:
>> USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading
>> a new document in the same browser window.

> News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling
> USEIT doesn't support you on this point either.

"Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their
own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the
current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows."
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html (#6)
A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current
page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be
missing some subtle nuances here, but it seems to me that "Jump links" do
not fit the bill.

" Interaction consistency is an additional reason it's wrong to open new
browser windows: the standard result of clicking a link is that the
destination page replaces the origination page in the same browser window.
Anything else is a violation of the users' expectations and makes them feel
insecure in their mastery of the Web. "
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html (#3)
In this short section the author says *twice* that it is all about
*consistency*, and again he use the words *replace the origination page*; so
my understanding of that document is that "jump links" are considered by the
author as bad as popup windows.

Note that my point is not to say that showing/hiding elements is better than
using "jump links", I'm just saying that - IMO - "jump links" are not "issue
free" as it has been suggested.

 >> IMHO, when a user clicks on a question that reveals the answer right
>> below it he knows that he's still viewing the same
>> document, because the surrounding elements did not change.
>> I believe  clicking on a link that jumps way down the page
>> may bit a bit more confusing for the average user.

> Revealing content means the surrounding elements *do* change.
> Following a hypertext link is the single most understood aspect of
> the web. In fact, it is it's defining feature - hence HyperText
> Markup Language.

Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature is to
*replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the user to another
part of the same document.
Anyway, I guess you missed my point. The *only* elements that move are the
ones below the Qs, users can see that the elements above are still there,
the navigation menu still appears in the exact same place in the sidebar
etc. They may be "surprised" by what just happend, but they know for a fact
that they didn't leave that document. IMO, this is very different when they
click on a link that takes them way down the page, they lose all visual

> What about if the question is at the very bottom of the viewport and
> the content is reveal below the window chrome? What about

My guess is that if that question is at the bottom of the viewport there is
a good chance that the user already knows how it works (for having clicked
on previous questions). The "Open All" link at the top of the document is an
extra hint.

> screenreader users who are, in effect, reading a copy of the page as
> it first loads?

I don't know, you tell me. As far as I know the Qs & As are fully accessible
to screen-readers users with or without script support, with or without
styles applied.

>> I see a relationship between a DT and a DD that I don't see
>> between a heading and a paragraph.

> Huh? What is the purpose of headings then? Headings and paras precede
> the web and definition lists. It is an inherent feature of reading and
> writing.

I didn't say they had no purpose, I said that I didn't see the same
relationship between the 2. Do you see the same relationship between them?

>> Definition List comes with a "bonus",  a natural wrapper (the DL).

> Adding a div is hardly a hack - W3C says a div offers a generic
> mechanism for adding extra structure to documents. Half a dozen one
> way, six the other.

I appreciate the fact that you think "discuss" vs. "mention" is a pedantic
argument but that "structural hack (a DIV)" vs. "generic mechanism for
adding extra structure to a document" is not.

Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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

Reply via email to