E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Which should come first - navigation OR content?

Number of posts in this thread: 34 (In chronological order)

From: Becky Tindle
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 6:00AM
Subject: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
No previous message | Next message →

Up until now I have been putting the navigation before the content in the HTML source and providing a 'skip nav/skip to content link' to give the option to skip the navigation.

More recently I have been working on a large site (already built and launched) that has been built with the content first in the flow of HTML and the navigation last - with a 'skip to navigation' link.

I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav first, content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no better option of the two.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated!

Becky :)

---------------------------------
Switch an email account to Yahoo! Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets.

From: ben morrison
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 6:50AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 4/25/06, Becky Tindle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Up until now I have been putting the navigation before the content in the
> HTML source and providing a 'skip nav/skip to content link' to give the
> option to skip the navigation.
>
> More recently I have been working on a large site (already built and
> launched) that has been built with the content first in the flow of HTML and
> the navigation last - with a 'skip to navigation' link.
>
> I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav first,
> content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no better
> option of the two.

Recently the trend has been about placing content first and using CSS
etc to move the nav into place at the top - visually, the idea being
that this would be better for screen readers etc.

Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.

ben.

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:00AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 25/04/06, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Recently the trend has been about placing content first and using CSS
> etc to move the nav into place at the top - visually, the idea being
> that this would be better for screen readers etc.
>
> Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
> of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
> to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.

But if all that has changed is the source order (ie the visual
appearance is the same), how does that "confuse most users"?

Tim

From: Tim Beadle
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:10AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 25/04/06, John Foliot - WATS.ca < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Users of Adaptive Technology are presented the whole page in the source
> order it is authored in (minus the styling). For inexperienced users of
> tools such as JAWS and WindowEyes (etc.) there is an expectation that
> the navigation will always come first, as that is what they encounter
> most of the time - it's almost a Pavlovian reaction (not that I am
> comparing these users to dogs <grin>). Thus, when we as authors change
> expected behaviours, it *may* cause confusion. This is not to say that
> placing the navigation at the end of the source code is bad (especially
> with the appropriate "Go To Main Navigation" link at the top of the
> document), only that it may initially "confuse" inexperienced users.

Ah! By "most users", Ben meant "some inexperience users of AT". OK -
it makes sense now :)

Cheers,

Tim

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
> of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
> to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.

I think Ben makes an good point. Most users do expect to see
the Navigation first but this is probably more due to convention/habit/volume.

Is it really best practice to put navigation first or merely a "tradition"?

IMO as long as the page has a "skip to content" link or similar,
is marked up well and can be navigated easily by screen reader users, those who prefer keyboard navigation etc, this whole issue is a moot point.

Josh

ben morrison wrote:
> On 4/25/06, Becky Tindle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>>Up until now I have been putting the navigation before the content in the
>>HTML source and providing a 'skip nav/skip to content link' to give the
>>option to skip the navigation.
>>
>>More recently I have been working on a large site (already built and
>>launched) that has been built with the content first in the flow of HTML and
>>the navigation last - with a 'skip to navigation' link.
>>
>>I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav first,
>>content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no better
>>option of the two.
>
>
> Recently the trend has been about placing content first and using CSS
> etc to move the nav into place at the top - visually, the idea being
> that this would be better for screen readers etc.
>
> Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
> of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
> to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.
>
> ben.
>
>
>
>
>

From: Jens Meiert
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:30AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav
> first, content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no
> better option of the two.

"The source order of a web page is likely to be of little relevance [to the
majority of screen reader users]" [1]. My experience doesn't let me
disagree.

Hope that helps,
Jens.

[1] http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm

--
Jens Meiert
http://meiert.com/

Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, German)
http://meiert.com/cssdesign/

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:40AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
> > of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
> > to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.
>
> I think Ben makes an good point. Most users do expect to see
> the Navigation first but this is probably more due to convention/habit/volume.

I expect the underground to be delayed and randomly stop every 10
minutes for 4 minutes without explanations. I don't necessarily like
it and see it as a necessity though.

People also expect layouts not to resize or reorder when their browser
changes, but it may be a good idea.

Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Just because something has been used as a quasi standard for years
doesn't make it good practice.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 7:50AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Up until now I have been putting the navigation before the content in the
> HTML source and providing a 'skip nav/skip to content link' to give the
> option to skip the navigation.
> More recently I have been working on a large site (already built and
> launched) that has been built with the content first in the flow of HTML and
> the navigation last - with a 'skip to navigation' link.
> I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav first,
> content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no better
> option of the two.
> Your thoughts would be much appreciated!

Depends on the product I guess.

I tend to try to have content first navigation last in most of the
cases, as it is better for SEO and mobile devices while being handy
for serialised access.
For layout purposes, navigation first tends to be easier as you don't
need to float the whole page content.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:00AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Tim Beadle wrote:
> On 25/04/06, ben morrison < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Recently the trend has been about placing content first and using CSS
>> etc to move the nav into place at the top - visually, the idea being
>> that this would be better for screen readers etc.
>>
>> Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
>> of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
>> to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.
>
> But if all that has changed is the source order (ie the visual
> appearance is the same), how does that "confuse most users"?
>

Users of Adaptive Technology are presented the whole page in the source
order it is authored in (minus the styling). For inexperienced users of
tools such as JAWS and WindowEyes (etc.) there is an expectation that
the navigation will always come first, as that is what they encounter
most of the time - it's almost a Pavlovian reaction (not that I am
comparing these users to dogs <grin>). Thus, when we as authors change
expected behaviours, it *may* cause confusion. This is not to say that
placing the navigation at the end of the source code is bad (especially
with the appropriate "Go To Main Navigation" link at the top of the
document), only that it may initially "confuse" inexperienced users.

Cheers!

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Christian, I think you are mixing up your syndromes ;)
I thought Stockholm Syndrome relates to people who have been kidnapped
and then come around to feel sympathy and support the
kidnapper or their cause, a la Patty Hearst.

I'd say its more a case of idiosyncratic attention.

>> Just because something has been used as a quasi standard for years
>> doesn't make it good practice.

Agreed. So its up to those with the smarts to be able to come up with good solutions
to lead the way. These can then be adopted as best practice and trickle down over time.

Josh

Christian Heilmann wrote:
>>>Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
>>>of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
>>>to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.
>>
>>I think Ben makes an good point. Most users do expect to see
>>the Navigation first but this is probably more due to convention/habit/volume.
>
>
> I expect the underground to be delayed and randomly stop every 10
> minutes for 4 minutes without explanations. I don't necessarily like
> it and see it as a necessity though.
>
> People also expect layouts not to resize or reorder when their browser
> changes, but it may be a good idea.
>
> Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
> Just because something has been used as a quasi standard for years
> doesn't make it good practice.
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
>
>
>
>
>

From: John E. Brandt
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:30AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you for this reference. It's nice to see research as part of this
discussion.

[1] http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm

That said, I am trying to understand what the authors means by "structural
labels." They state:

"All the participants indicated the inclusion of structural labels
identifying the different levels of navigation on a web page was useful."

In reading through the article, they comment that they have been using this
(structural labels) for some time. I've not heard of this before so I am
trying to understand what they are referring to.

In looking at the code on the page of this article, I see they have added
IDs (e.g. ID="footer") to all of the headings, unordered lists and for the
header and footer elements. Interestingly, they did not include summary
statements or IDs for the table elements.

Is this what they are referring to as "structural labels? How are these
rendered in the screen reader?

Very curious.

~j

John E. Brandt
Augusta, Maine USA
www.jebswebs.com

From: ben morrison
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:40AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 4/25/06, Christian Heilmann < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > Recently I stumbled across some research that said since the majority
> > > of sites have been built with Nav 1st then Content, it is more likely
> > > to confuse most users - annoyingly I didnt bookmark the report.
>
> I expect the underground to be delayed and randomly stop every 10
> minutes for 4 minutes without explanations. I don't necessarily like
> it and see it as a necessity though.
>
> People also expect layouts not to resize or reorder when their browser
> changes, but it may be a good idea.
>
> Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
> Just because something has been used as a quasi standard for years
> doesn't make it good practice.

I'm all for change and improvements as far as source order is
concerned, but we should also be carefull of changing existing user
expectations.

The report I was referring to was later posted by Jens and its
conclusions are interesting.

Personally I'd like to see Source Content before Nav.

http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm#conclusion

ben

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:50AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
>
> Christian, I think you are mixing up your syndromes ;)
> I thought Stockholm Syndrome relates to people who have been kidnapped
> and then come around to feel sympathy and support the
> kidnapper or their cause, a la Patty Hearst.

Yes, in this case a lot of developers pushed a lot of navigation in
the face of the user first for years and years and it is becoming a
standard. I remember SEO articles from 1999 talking about changing the
table order to show content first as a good idea. If we hadn't had the
navigation first and content later as a design pattern for years the
whole big discussion about skip links would've never happened.

As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
is normal and there is nothing you can do".

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Becky Tindle
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> is normal and there is nothing you can do".

I suppose that is a kink in Human nature that we can accept that which
is intolerable as "normal", in the absence of a viable alternative.

----------------------------------------------------------

So are you now saying that it is bad practice to put navigation first - and that content should always come first? From the last few posts quite a few seem to be in agreement on this. If so - I'd like to hear your reasons as I remain undecided at the moment.

Cheers,

Becky

Joshue O Connor < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote: > As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> is normal and there is nothing you can do".

I suppose that is a kink in Human nature that we can accept that which
is intolerable as "normal", in the absence of a viable alternative.

Josh

Christian Heilmann wrote:
>>>Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
>>
>>Christian, I think you are mixing up your syndromes ;)
>>I thought Stockholm Syndrome relates to people who have been kidnapped
>>and then come around to feel sympathy and support the
>>kidnapper or their cause, a la Patty Hearst.
>
>
> Yes, in this case a lot of developers pushed a lot of navigation in
> the face of the user first for years and years and it is becoming a
> standard. I remember SEO articles from 1999 talking about changing the
> table order to show content first as a good idea. If we hadn't had the
> navigation first and content later as a design pattern for years the
> whole big discussion about skip links would've never happened.
>
> As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> is normal and there is nothing you can do".
>
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------
24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail. Learn more

From: ben morrison
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 9:20AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 4/25/06, John E. Brandt < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> That said, I am trying to understand what the authors means by "structural
> labels." They state:
>
> "All the participants indicated the inclusion of structural labels
> identifying the different levels of navigation on a web page was useful."

It can be helpful to use headers as "structural labels." On their page
they have the following before the navigation.

<h2 class="displaynone">
Site navigation
</h2>

Although their CSS is actually using display:none to hide it from the
screen and would be better using an offLeft technique so that is
actually visible to screen readers[1].

[1] http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=ScreenreaderVisibility

ben

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 4/25/06, Becky Tindle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> > Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> > system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> > is normal and there is nothing you can do".
>
> I suppose that is a kink in Human nature that we can accept that which
> is intolerable as "normal", in the absence of a viable alternative.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> So are you now saying that it is bad practice to put navigation first - and
> that content should always come first? From the last few posts quite a few
> seem to be in agreement on this. If so - I'd like to hear your reasons as I
> remain undecided at the moment.

I thought I answered that already:

Depends on the product I guess.

I tend to try to have content first navigation last in most of the
cases, as it is better for SEO and mobile devices while being handy
for serialized access.
For layout purposes, navigation first tends to be easier as you don't
need to float the whole page content.

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 9:40AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Becky,

IMO as long as the page has a "skip to content" link or similar,
is marked up well and can therefore be navigated easily by screen reader users, those who prefer keyboard navigation etc, I don't think it matters. Others on the list may feel differently but
I personally would not get too hung up on this issue as well marked up content
facilitates good navigation, in the sense that the *user* can then navigate your site easily.

Josh

Becky Tindle wrote:
> > As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> > Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> > system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> > is normal and there is nothing you can do".
>
> I suppose that is a kink in Human nature that we can accept that which
> is intolerable as "normal", in the absence of a viable alternative.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> So are you now saying that it is bad practice to put navigation first -
> and that content should always come first? From the last few posts quite
> a few seem to be in agreement on this. If so - I'd like to hear your
> reasons as I remain undecided at the moment.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Becky
>
> */Joshue O Connor < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >/* wrote:
>
> > As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> > Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> > system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> > is normal and there is nothing you can do".
>
> I suppose that is a kink in Human nature that we can accept that which
> is intolerable as "normal", in the absence of a viable alternative.
>
> Josh
>
>
> Christian Heilmann wrote:
> >>>Far too often in IT we seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
> >>
> >>Christian, I think you are mixing up your syndromes ;)
> >>I thought Stockholm Syndrome relates to people who have been
> kidnapped
> >>and then come around to feel sympathy and support the
> >>kidnapper or their cause, a la Patty Hearst.
> >
> >
> > Yes, in this case a lot of developers pushed a lot of navigation in
> > the face of the user first for years and years and it is becoming a
> > standard. I remember SEO articles from 1999 talking about
> changing the
> > table order to show content first as a good idea. If we hadn't
> had the
> > navigation first and content later as a design pattern for years the
> > whole big discussion about skip links would've never happened.
> >
> > As to the Stockholm Syndrome: You realise that a lot with Windows
> > Users. We are so used to random crashes, that we start defending the
> > system when people point that out to us. "Well, it happens, but that
> > is normal and there is nothing you can do".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 24 FIFA World Cup tickets to be won with Yahoo! Mail. Learn more
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/fifa_trueswitch/*http://eur.i1.yimg.com/java.europe.yahoo.com/uk/mail/fu/trueswitch/index.html>;
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

From: ********
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

This thread has been quite interesting. I hadn't given much thought to the placement of navigation.

Thanks for the resource: http://usability.com.au/resources/source-order.cfm It was a great article!

The article ensured me that for Florida Blind Services website global, local, content, is the best way to stay. It was like the researches did the study just for us. <grinning> In the article's final test, the partipant with the least screen reader experince, who lost her site recently was relying on her preconceived notion of how a web site is layed out. In Florida because we still our a retirement state, the largest number of persons who experience significant vision loss most likely would be like like that particular person.

(Note: I use h1, h2, h3 - consistently across site and have skip navigation will be added a coupld to new design and see what staff think).

From: ********
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 10:50AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Good question. When I read the article, I made the assumption that it was talking about such things as <title>Some name<title>, H1, H2, H3, form stuff like "label for" or field sets, that are in the code that speech users rely on to navigate the page quickly.

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 1:00PM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

What do you all think of using tabindex=1 to jump to the content, and
tabindex=2 to the navigation. Seems to me like it accomplishes the
whole lot in one attribute.

Allen Hoffman

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 1:10PM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> What do you all think of using tabindex=1 to jump to the content, and
> tabindex=2 to the navigation. Seems to me like it accomplishes the
> whole lot in one attribute.
> Allen Hoffman

How long have you been on this list? I save John Foliot the standard
answer. IMHO tabindex is really nothing I would rely on in any case.

Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19

More reasons why we don't use accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37

Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations:
http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38

Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52

The Future of Accesskeys:
http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 2:30PM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian Heilmann wrote:
> How long have you been on this list? I save John Foliot the standard
> answer. IMHO tabindex is really nothing I would rely on in any case.
>
> Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19
>
> More reasons why we don't use accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37
>
> Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations:
> http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38
>
> Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52
>
> The Future of Accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66
>

Well, gee, thanks Christian, however a recent debacle with a server
transfer (and my failure to do a proper backup) resulted in a few things
going amiss.

1) not all of the above articles are still on-line (sigh)
2) the URLs unfortunately changed (Grrr...)
3) I believe the question was regarding tabindex (vs. accesskeys) -
although like accesskeys, I also believe that messing with the natural
tab order is something that really should be avoided. I have yet heard
a valid (to me) reason why you would want to change the natural flow of
a page.

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist
WATS.ca - Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Tue, Apr 25 2006 8:00PM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Why not use headers (H1 and H2)?

Jon

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:04:50 +0100
>From: "Christian Heilmann" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Which should come first - navigation OR
content?
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>> What do you all think of using tabindex=1 to jump to the
content, and
>> tabindex=2 to the navigation. Seems to me like it
accomplishes the
>> whole lot in one attribute.
>> Allen Hoffman
>
>How long have you been on this list? I save John Foliot the
standard
>answer. IMHO tabindex is really nothing I would rely on in
any case.
>
> Using Accesskeys - Is it worth it?:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeys/19
>
> More reasons why we don't use accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyconflicts/37
>
> Accesskeys and Reserved Keystroke Combinations:
> http://www.wats.ca/resources/accesskeysandkeystrokes/38
>
> Link Relationships as an Alternative to Accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/accesskeyalternatives/52
>
> The Future of Accesskeys:
> http://www.wats.ca/articles/thefutureofaccesskeys/66
>
>
>

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
Cell: (217) 714-6313

E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 12:20AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Why not use headers (H1 and H2)?

Shouldn't headers structure the page content, not the site content?

This is the endless discussion about the logo of the site as an h1 or
not, too...

From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 3:10AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian Heilmann wrote:
>> What do you all think of using tabindex=1 to jump to the content, and
>> tabindex=2 to the navigation. Seems to me like it accomplishes the
>> whole lot in one attribute.
>> Allen Hoffman
>
> How long have you been on this list? I save John Foliot the standard
> answer. IMHO tabindex is really nothing I would rely on in any case.

But those links appear to be about access keys not tab index order.
I've only been on here a few months and I don't remember seeing a
discussion of tab index used this way so I'd be quite interested to read
the pros and cons.

Penny

From: Peter Weil
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 7:20AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

I've wondered about this myself. Navigation menus, whether global or
local, are not really part of the content of the page (at least from
my point of view). If that's the case, then applying header tags to
navigation menus would not make much sense in terms of page
structure. On the other hand, using header tags for navigation can be
helpful (it seems) from an accessibility standpoint because of the
way screen readers can present a nice list of page headings.

If XHTML provided a structural element designed specifically for
navigation, we might be better off (the same might be said for other
common page elements, such as footers). But it doesn't, and so we are
left to decide how best to work with a less-than-perfect set of tools.

Peter

On Apr 26, 2006, at 1:12 AM, Christian Heilmann wrote:

>> Why not use headers (H1 and H2)?
>
> Shouldn't headers structure the page content, not the site content?
>
> This is the endless discussion about the logo of the site as an h1 or
> not, too...
>
>
>

--
Peter Weil, Web Developer
University Communications
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Phone: 608-262-6538
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

From: zara
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 9:30AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Up until now I have been putting the navigation before the content in the
> HTML source and providing a 'skip nav/skip to content link' to give the
> option to skip the navigation.
>
> More recently I have been working on a large site (already built and
> launched) that has been built with the content first in the flow of HTML
> and the navigation last - with a 'skip to navigation' link.
>
> I am not sure which I feel is better - I'm inclined to think that nav
> first, content after is more conventional thus far... maybe there is no
> better option of the two.

The practice often favoured here by developers is to put navigation first for the home page and content first on all other pages of the site (with the appropriate skip to links). The reason for this is, as with any user, navigational elements can give you a good idea of the general content of the site but once you have moved on from the home page, you usually have gotten that info and are more interested in content.

Catherine

--
Catherine Roy, consultante

www.catherine-roy.net
514.525.9490

From: Paul R. Bohman
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 9:50AM
Subject: Re: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

The question of which should come first *ought to be* a non-issue. There
a few approaches to making the order not matter so much:

1. The content author provides workarounds: e.g. Create links like "skip
to main content", "skip navigation", or "skip to navigation".

2. The browser provides multiple page navigation mechanisms: e.g. such
as Opera's ability to jump from heading to heading (S key to go forward,
W key to go backward) or from element to element (D to go forward, E to
go backward). In addition to these keyboard shortcuts, most browsers
allow users to jump from link to link (usually using tab to go forward
and shift+tab to go backward), and allow users to jump to the top of the
page (Page up) or bottom (Page down) or to scroll (up arrow and down
arrow), allowing users to search for words on the page (I especially
like the "find by typing" option in Firefox), etc.

3. An add-on or assistive technology can add additional navigation
functionality: e.g. most screen readers provide multiple methods of
navigating through the page, including headings, lists of links, element
to element, one line at a time, one word at a time, one letter at a
time, and other methods relevant to people who can't see the page.

4. The specifications for HTML can provide semantic hooks in the
language itself: e.g. navigation menus can be designated as such, to
differentiate them from non-navigation content. XHTML 2.0 takes steps in
this direction.

5. Intelligent software (approaching artificial intelligence) can parse
the content, extract its semantic meaning, and present it to users using
either standards-based or convention-based structure and formatting.
This would be a high-tech way of making meaning out of ill-defined
domains (and when we're talking about human writing or conversation--no
matter the topic--the intended meaning is almost always an ill-defined
domain).

With all of these potential approaches, content developers can create
the content in pretty much any order they want. Users will still be able
to get around within the content.

Of course, the big problem is that these methods are largely dependent
on the code being developed logically in the first place, and the
skilled use of semantic elements (headings, etc.) definitely helps.

About conventions: In some ways it helps to follow conventions, no
matter how ill-conceived they are. In other ways it would make sense to
invent new and better conventions, but it's always an uphill climb.
Here's an example: there are several keyboard layouts that have been
scientifically "proven" to be more efficient than our standard QWERTY
keyboard. If we all used them, we'd be more productive. I don't doubt
that at all. The trouble is that nobody wants to change. Should we
change keyboards? I think the logical answer is yes. Will we? I doubt
it. If there was a big push to change keyboards, I would probably
support it. And it would probably fizzle out. That's just the way things go.

So I think most people will continue putting the navigation on the top,
and most people will continue to prefer it that way, for better or for
worse.

But to return to my original message: it shouldn't matter. I think we'll
be better off focusing on methods to make the placement irrelevant.

--

Paul R. Bohman
Technology Coordinator
Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities (www.kihd.gmu.edu)
George Mason University (www.gmu.edu)

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 10:20AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> 5. Intelligent software (approaching artificial intelligence)
> can parse the content, extract its semantic meaning, and
> present it to users using either standards-based or
> convention-based structure and formatting.

Regarding that, specifically the contention-based idea, how involved are
the screen reader/aural browser developers with organizations like
Web-AIM?

This seems like a perfect use for things akin to microformats.

Since we don't have a <navigation> tag right now, it'd be great if we
(we being web site developers and browser developers) simply could all
agree on a defacto microformat for accessibility enhancements.

Perhaps everyone agrees that class="siteNavigation" means just
that...that this chunk of content on is site navigation for the page.

Doing that would enable screen readers/aural browsers to look for that
first, and act upon it however they wanted to.

Just some morning pre-coffee ramblings...

-Darrel

From: zara
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 10:40AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

> Wouldn't that be confusing? You're setting up an expectation on your
> homepage (in terms of how your pages are structured), and then
> deviating from it straight away on the first level down into the site.

Perhaps to an inexperienced user. Thing is, most users of these AT learn them in the course of professional rehabilitation services for communication aids. That is most often the case here in Qu

From: smithj7
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 10:50AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

H1, h2, h3 are used by people using AT like speech for CONTENT.

From: smithj7
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 11:00AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | Next message →

Go to http://www.empowermentzone.com/ to see the power of h2, h2 on
links. Our speech users love this page! Need to look at source code.
If the header tage wasn't used you can bet most speech users wouldn't be
going back to it over and and over again.

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Apr 26 2006 11:10AM
Subject: RE: Which should come first - navigation OR content?
← Previous message | No next message

> zara

> The practice often favoured here by developers is to put
> navigation first for the home page and content first on all
> other pages of the site (with the appropriate skip to links).

Wouldn't that be confusing? You're setting up an expectation on your
homepage (in terms of how your pages are structured), and then
deviating from it straight away on the first level down into the site.

> The reason for this is, as with any user, navigational
> elements can give you a good idea of the general content of
> the site but once you have moved on from the home page, you
> usually have gotten that info and are more interested in content.

That model assumes, though, that visitors always come through the
homepage first...

I don't feel particularly strongly about the issue either way, but
I'm just wondering about consistency between homepage and internal
pages.

P
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________