Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.

Note

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: Tue, Jun 26 2007 6:20 AM

Thanks Peter Korn.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.


Hi Peter,

Sorry for jumping into this thread some ways back from the present - I'm
just back from vacation, and wading through nearly two weeks of TEITAC
e-mail discussions...


> I believe the over-arching goal of our standards is to create a world
> where all content is accessible. Thus, if we mandate that it be
> visible then every site should be 'equally ugly' (if one deems a
> SkipNav link as ugly), removing any argument that it might detract
> from sales or visitors. On the other hand, if every site indeed did
> have it, then keeping it invisible would be just fine too. On the
> other other hand, the best solution is still that every browser
> provides a mechanism to accomplish the same goal. But until we reach
> utopia (probably not in my lifetime), I vote for keeping it visible.

I think this would be a serious mistake, for a number of reasons (some
already cited in this thread).

First, fundamentally what I believe we want are mechanism for efficient
navigation of web content. This isn't about merely "skipping redundant
headers/link groups", but about finding the portion of the content you
want. Structured content is the way to do this, with structure that is:
a. accessible
b. discoverable
c. supported by the user agent and AT
d. appropriate to the content
e. meets the needs of users with differing disabilities

SkipNav fails many of these tests. It isn't appropriate to all content
(cf. Flash apps), and it is very limited in how much structure can be
conveyed (cf. Sean's message in this thread).

The only reason SkipNav is attractive is that not all user agents, and
not all AT, are capable of dealing with all of the various HTML-based
techniques for exposing and navigating structured web pages (e.g.
headers, lists, frames). But we are TEITAC, and we are defining
standards not just for web content, but also for software applications.
So why not recognize that software that renders rich content (defining
the threshold here will be interesting, but certainly explicitly HTML
content) must provide a mechanism to navigate structured content and
expose that mechanism to AT?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.



> Peter Wallack
> Accessibility Program Director
> Oracle Corporation
>
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
>> As far as the visual appearance of 'skip to main content' links affecting
>> the page real estate........
>>
>> I think we all understand the hard-sell issues, but that shouldn't keep
>> us from requiring and defining the functionality we know is useful and
>> important for *all* persons with disabilities, to cover as many needs as
>> possible.
>>
>> One could argue that sitemaps, redundant links (ie for image maps), table
>> captions, white space/spacing requirements, even the semantic structure
>> (h#), affect visual page real estate and possibly some cognitive
>> understanding.
>>
>> Have these not been useful tools towards our goal of providing
>> accessibility standards? Has this not steered AT and IT development in
>> the right direction?
>>
>> My point is that....though visual 'skip to main content' links (as one
>> method of meeting this requirement) can indeed be a hard sell, it should
>> not stop us from requiring what we know will assist users in acheiving
>> comparable access.
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>> From: Sailesh Panchang < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Jun 12, 2007 4:54 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is also one of the very few things that directly impact visual
>>>> design
>>>> and that is a *VERY* big barrier for implementation in many areas. I
>>>> thus
>>>> advocate a broader definition of "mechanisms" to allow flexibility and
>>>> future-proofing.
>>>>
>>> I second this without hesitation. Indeed even private sector
>>> organizations
>>> not covered by S508 implement invisible skip nav because it does not
>>> come in
>>> the way of visual design and yet helps a section of their visitors. I
>>> agree
>>> that a visible link helps some users. But a visible skip nav link like
>>> a
>>> visible D-link has the ability to confuse many users who have no use
>>> for
>>> them. It is also a hard-sell to powers that be who are responsible for
>>> site
>>> design and need accessibility-education.
>>> Sailesh Panchang
>>> Senior Accessibility Engineer
>>> Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
>>> 11130 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #140,
>>> Reston VA 20191
>>> Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
>>> E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University