Thread Subject: Re: Group D: 22(o) Skip navigation
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Nov 30 2006 5:50 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(o) Skip navigation"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(o) Skip navigation"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Links are not the only things needing jumping over or to.
On Nov 30, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
I'm just leaving the whole conversation below since it is all relevant.
I think skip-nav links *must* be visible for the reasons cited below. I
think what we could do to improve the existing standard is to focus the
applicability of it more precisely. For example, when applied to static
content that includes many navigation points then a block of content,
skip-nav makes perfect sense, but who decides the line from 2 links to
skip, and 5 links to skip? When applied to a web application with
several "buttons" that "do" something, is it needed, or would correctly
following the correct focus update solve that? Skip-nav was definitely
originated from screen-reader users in the past and many screen readers
include functionality that sort of does this job for the user. using
well done headers helps, but may not really be a perfect solution
either. Personally I like skip-to-content, but only when its applied
so maybe we could write:
When repetitive links, or multiple sets of repetitive links are present
on a web page, a visible method to change the focus to major content, or
by-pass repetitive links must be provided accept when repetitive links
provide this functionality.
could we also include anything regarding the tabindex of such a method?
For example, generally it is kind of pointless to put the skip-nav link
at position ten or more, after the links one is intended to skip, but
technically one might say the requirement was met. Generally it is best
to put such links at the first or second links for the page. Also, how
would we address when to use multiple skip=-nav links?
On 11/30/06, Fratkin, Mike < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Additionally, there should be a requirement that the link or mechanism
> be visible to other users with disabilities (keyboard users not using
> screen readers) so that they can take advantage of bypassing repeated
> content as well. This can remain visible or become visible when
> tabbed to.
I think I must disagree here, especially if we were to specify that ALL
repeated elements must provide this mechanisms. And must we provide a
mechanism to skip forward and backward? If this is the case, then this
will introduce MANY links on each typical web page - at the beginning
and end of navigation, sub-navigation, header, footer, and other common
page elements. Consider the cognitive load of so many links (a good
share of users are confused by "skip to content" alone), let alone the
web developer backlash.
We've barely begun to see limited success in developers implementing
"skip navigation" links. This is because it is one of the few
requirements that has an impact upon visual design. While we're now at a
point where the burden for such functionality can and is being shifted
away from content developers to user agents, I would encourage that we
pursue guidelines that would support such methods. With a tiny bit of
user agent support, this could be mostly solved by us simply encouraging
semantically structured page content (at a minimum providing proper
- Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(o) Skip navigation"
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Group D: 22(o) Skip navigation"