WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Unordered Lists

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Aug 12, 2005 11:12AM

Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:

> How do you know that UL and OL does not have any significant differences as list of links for users with non-graphical browsers?
> (you mentioned that you did tests on your org's Web site with a screen reader some time ago)

Because I also spoke to a blind screen reader user who also happens to
be a web developer in the very early stages of the design process, and
he expressed no concerns about using unordered lists for the type of
navigation we envisaged. In fact, he was doing the same thing himself on
his sites. Representative? Of course not...but a pragmatic decision by
which I stand.

> If OL would prove to be more user friendly than UL,

If there was proof that our navigation as an OL was better than the
current navigation...

As it stands, the way pages are navigated, our flat lists of links (as
opposed to complex, nested lists as found in things like those
list-based dropdown menu systems) do not, in my opinion and the opinion
of our testers at the time, pose any significant problem in terms of
accessibility, usability, or anything else. If you can provide evidence
that our particular navigation would be hugely improved if I switched
from UL to OL, then I'm willing to reconsider...

> would you say that your organisation's Web accessibility policy gives higher priority to the usability of your Web site rather than its coding semantics?

I would say that the policy strikes a balance between all factors
(usability, standards, etc).

> (Also, is really DIV proper semantics as content structure for list of links in your Breadcrumb bar?)

Ah, I see we reached the inevitable point in every standards
conversation where somebody who doesn't like a certain argument goes off
to find dubious markup on the other's site and by mentioning it tries to
invalidate anything else that the other person might have said before?
Good good. No, the DIV is not the best semantic fit, and if I coded the
templates again today (rather than having to reuse the templates I
created over 2 years ago) I would go for an ordered list in the
particular case of breadcrumbs (as discussed many times before both on
this and other web standards lists). However, the DIV currently used
(for a variety of reasons which are to do with the devolved authoring on
the site) is neutral as a construct. Using a neutral element is
certainly not on par with using an element that is plainly wrong from a
structural point of view.

> Why not let the students make such tests as a special course/extra study (or what you call it)?

Because I am not working with the students. Just because I work at a
University does not mean that I get to influence what goes into a course
or programme of study *sigh*

Anyway, as a general principle: I'm happy to make slight concessions
when it comes to markup (bending the already fairly vague - in certain
points - standards) if it has a demonstrable positive effect on
usability. However, as Jan mentioned "it seems to be a screen reader
problem"...and that's the crux of the issue: current screen readers
still do not take advantage of web standards, effectively encouraging
developers to often revert to wrong or at least structurally dubious
methods. That is exactly the situation that the WaSP Accessibility Task
Force is going to try and remedy by working with screen reader
developers. If they do not aknowledge standards, then we end up in a
situation all to similar to the "coding to a specific browser" scenario
that we all know too well from Internet Explorer...

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re