WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions

for

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Nov 9, 2004 9:02AM

> > I use "Skip to Main Content" link now after reading the recent
> > articles about the "semantics" fo the terms we genearlly use in these.
>
> On the other hand, it's one more word, and adds no significant
> additional meaning. My view is that not all accessibility is
> desirable: you have to define your target audience.

Regarding "Skip to Main Content" vs. "Skip to Content", I think that the
word which carries the weight of the received meaning is actually just the
first word: "Skip". In part this may be because these have been referred to
as "skipnav" links (or some variation of that) for so long. I think that
people who actually make use of such links will assume that they skip to the
"main content" unless they encounter a series of them in a row at the top of
your page (skipping to different parts of the page). If that's true, then
the exact phrasing won't really be that significant for actual users of
those links, as it is a learned custom more than a meaningful phrase.
People who have never used such skipnav links will not be able to guess
where they will go until they have tried them on a number of different
websites. I know the first time I used one I really wasn't sure where it
would go, though I don't need them for navigation purposes when I browse
normally. Also, since different pages will use the same phrase to go to
slightly different places on a page, it is difficult for such link phrases
to be absolutely clear and unambiguous -- without being unnecessarily wordy.

So, shortening it to "Skip to Content" makes as much sense to me as
anything.

I've got a site where I use "Skip Navigation Menu" but I wouldn't recommend
that as a good option -- I'm using it because each page has its own "Page
Contents" section, and various "Return to Contents" links as a result. And
I don't want to use "Skip to Body" because the link actually goes to the
Page Contents (which is the beginning of the page-specific body) instead of
skipping over the contents as well and arriving at what I would think of as
the real "main body" text.


susan.rgrossman wrote:
> i always makw the links visible to all users (not tiny) beasue I fell
> they have value to all users and that it re-inforces to users that the
> web is for all.

I think this is a good reason to make the skip navigation links visible,
especially for websites in the non-profit sector who have a mandate to
provide information to the public, or for sites in the disabilities field.
There is, however, an argument to be made that the more prominent such links
are, the greater the possibility that they will simply introduce confusion
to other users. The function of skipnav links is not all that clear to
users who do not need them. But of course, the more hidden they are, the
less they perform the function of promoting a universal access agenda.

One other option is to include an explanation of such skipnav links in an
accessibility statement and make the accessibility statement prominent.
That is something that some commercial sites might also consider as a way of
attracting or serving users with disabilities or access barriers and as a
way of promoting themselves as committed to such services -- and as a way of
doing both so it is clear and understandable to other users as well.

Phil.