Terrence Wood wrote: > Thierry Koblentz said: >> Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these >> articles or that I am plain wrong? > Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion > based on that misintrepretation.
I disagree. > Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and > nothing more (e.g. your claim that divs are hacks; you use skip links > on your site but are argueing here that every link must load an > entirely new document). Wow! This time you're seriously wrong. What I'm using on my site has absolutely nothing to with the way I interpret the USEIT articles. FYI, I'm not only using skip links, but also popup windows. Does that make me unaware of the issues related to both? >> the popup window reference is irrelevant. >> If you simply replace "opening new windows" with "using jump links" > If you replaced it with "chocolate orange cake" it would make sense > according to your logic, but it becomes glaringly obvious just how > wrong that logic is. I disagree, and FWIW I find your analogy pretty silly. One can click on a "jump link", not on a "chocolate orange cake". > What you are calling "jump links" are nothing more than hypertext > links. Hypertext links are the foundation of the web. W3C define > hypertext links like this: "A link is a connection from one web > resource to another [1]... The destination anchor of a link may be an > element within an HTML document.[2]" That's the W3C talking, AFAIK, it has absolutely nothing to do with usability/accessibility. It is about how things are supposed to work, not how they are supposed to be implemented. For example, accesskey is a proper attribute, part of the recommendations, but there are usability/accessibility issues attached to it, isn't? And there are other examples... >> It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency* > Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never disputed > that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of > links to resources within a page is a convention for the web. So how can you say that "jump links" in a document are consistent with the navigation links for example? Users click on the latter and are taken to another page, they click on the former and are taken in a different location on the same page. How consistent is that? Actually, I believe the key is to let the user *know* what's about to happen when he clicks on something that is going to do anything else than loading a *new* document. We see that with links that open popup windows so why should we think it should be different with other "behaviors"? In short, I believe that a FAQ page that says "clicking on the Qs will reveals the As below" is less an issue than "jump links" that do not warn the user of what's gonna happen next. Regards, 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 ******************************************************
