E-mail List Archives
Thread: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
Number of posts in this thread: 34 (In chronological order)
From: Iain Harrison
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 12:51AM
Subject: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
No previous message | Next message →
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 1:01:03 AM, susan.rgrossman wrote:
> 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.
There is a baseline level of understanding and comprehension ability
we can reasonably expect from the users of mainstream public web
sites can reasonably expect of their users.
If a line is not drawn, we're on a slippery slope towards
dumbed-down sites that pander to all and satisfy none. Of course
there is a market for web sites for people with learning
difficulties, but that's not who this web site is for.
What do you and others think of that approach?
> 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.
To be honest, I'm not keen to make such statements on a site where
the client has made no specific request for an accessible site.
There's nothing wrong with an evangelical approach towards
accessibility, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to use paying
clients' web sites to promote it.
I'm in the UK, where pedestrian crossings over the road used to have
beepers, but now have tiny, very subtle tactile alerts for visually
handicapped people. They are not apparent to 99% of the public, work
for deaf-blind people as well, and are a success. But a sighted user
would not see them (or hear them).
Something similar for web sites seems like a good approach, except
for the cause of publicising our "accessible web" design and
development skills.
--
Iain
From: Iain Harrison
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 12:57AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 7:50:30 AM, iain wrote:
> There is a baseline level of understanding and comprehension ability
> we can reasonably expect from the users of mainstream public web
> sites can reasonably expect of their users.
Erk! Editing disaster. Try
> There is a baseline level of understanding and comprehension ability
> we can reasonably expect from the users of mainstream public web
> sites.
--
Iain
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 8:31AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> 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.
Anyone ever user test things like visible skip links on a regular audience
of user testers? I wonder if they are simply ignored by those that don't
utilize them, or if they add a bit of unecessary complexity (ie, 'what is
that link for?') to the unaware?
On our new site:
http://www.courts.state.mn.us
I made the skip-links visibility a user-option, rather than having them on
by default for that (assumed) reason.
> As for the site map - I'm a firm beleiver in having a text based site
> map above the fold visible for all readers too. I beleive a such is
> becoming a standard, one that I endorse since it's valuable to all.
Yes, site maps I find are useful to pretty much anyone...and anything (like
google bots).
-Darrel
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 9:02AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> > 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.
From: reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 9:14AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> 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".
It was this article on the word content pronunciation through JAWS
that had me altering my skip links recently to "Skip to Main Content"
http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0304-observing.html
--
Susan R. Grossman
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 9:32AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks for the link to this interesting article. I had not seen this
before. I'm not sure I am convinced that the researchers have drawn
accurate, generalizable conclusions about the best practices for skip
navigation links, but they raise some points worth considering.
I thought that many JAWS users don't actually make use of the skip
navigation links at all, because they have set the browser to skip the
repeated section at the top of each page automatically or because they use
other shortcuts to jump to headings or something. Maybe it depends on what
version of JAWS one uses, or on how experienced one is with it?
Phil.
>
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 9:49AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> I thought that many JAWS users don't actually make use of the skip
> navigation links at all, because they have set the browser to skip the
> repeated section at the top of each page automatically or because
> they use other shortcuts to jump to headings or something. Maybe it
> depends on what version of JAWS one uses, or on how experienced one
> is with it?
Let's not forget that 'skip links' are also highly useful for those that can
see just fine, but rely on (or prefer using) the keyboard for navigation.
-Darrel
From: Mary Martinson Grossnickle
Date: Tue, Nov 09 2004 3:11PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
>
> > I thought that many JAWS users don't actually make use of the skip
> > navigation links at all, because they have set the browser to skip the
> > repeated section at the top of each page automatically or because
> > they use other shortcuts to jump to headings or something. Maybe it
> > depends on what version of JAWS one uses, or on how experienced one
> > is with it?
The JAWS users I have had in usability testing _do_ use the skip nav links.
Many people use only the basic JAWS commands, and may not have learned the
keyboard combination that lets them skip to content. It's hard to learn that
product by just listening to the tutorial, and many people use only the
basics that someone else has shown them. Also, I don't think that we can
eliminate accessibility techniques (such as skip nav) and justify it by
saying that the assistive technology can handle it now (not that you implied
that, but I've heard that argument before). You are right to question
whether it depends on the level of experience and the version. Always
important considerations.
Mary Grossnickle
From: michael.brockington
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:04AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:24AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> Also, I don't think
> > that we can eliminate accessibility techniques (such as skip
> > nav) and justify it by saying that the assistive technology
> > can handle it now
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we supposed to keep our
> pages as simple
> as is reasonable possible, in order to aid those with cognitive
> disabilities?
>
> That would suggest that we _should_ remove all extraneous navigation.
> Mike
Mary I am sure will clarify, but I thought her point was also partly that in
the the case of screen reader users, the current, observed pracitce of many
users was that they do in fact make use of skip nav links. That seems also
to be the conclusion of the study pointed to in an earlier posting about
observing screen reader users. I'm not sure how removing skip nav links
will assist this population, including especially those with cognitive
disabilities. Skip navigation links are not, at this point, "extraneous
navigation", are they?
But aside from that discussion, as others have pointed out in this thread,
the skip navigation links do not serve only JAWS users: they also serve
keyboard-only users and they also serve users of non-JAWS screen-reading
software (some of which do not implement their own intrinsic skip navigation
systems).
Phil.
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:27AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> That would suggest that we _should_ remove all extraneous navigation.
Are skip links extraneous?
-Darrel
From: Mary Martinson Grossnickle
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:49AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> > That would suggest that we _should_ remove all extraneous navigation.
> > Mike
>
> Mary I am sure will clarify, but I thought her point was also
> partly that in the the case of screen reader users, the current, observed
> pracitce of many users was that they do in fact make use of skip nav
links.
Yes, that was my point, thanks.
Mary
>That seems also to be the conclusion of the study pointed to in an earlier
posting about
> observing screen reader users. I'm not sure how removing skip nav links
> will assist this population, including especially those with cognitive
> disabilities. Skip navigation links are not, at this point, "extraneous
> navigation", are they?
I would agree these are not extraneous, but necessary.
Mary
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 9:38AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, maryg wrote:
> > Skip navigation links are not, at this point, "extraneous
> > navigation", are they?
>
> I would agree these are not extraneous, but necessary.
I think the point is that when you remove extraneous navigation, you won't
have any substantial navigation to be skipped over. (And then a skip nav
link itself would indeed be extraneous.)
Alternatively, if you put navigation at the end of a page, there's not
much need to skip over it. Rather, the question is how to indicate, to
someone consuming the page in linear order, that he has reached the end of
content proper, so that the rest is navigation or metainformation about
the page.
Users seem to disagree on whether the common "navigation bar" on the left
is useful. So do experts; Nielsen says "less is more" (in navigation).
To some people, it seems to be a "feeling OK" issue: they regard it as
better to have the navigation bar on the left just in case they get lost -
even if they seldom use it, and even if when it turns out to be fairly
useless when they actually try to use it.
I think it is symptomatic that "skip nav" breaks the idea of links as
references. Whenever a link text contains a verb in the imperative,
you are actually trying to create a user interface because your content
has not been adapted to the implied user interfaces in Web browsing.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 10:26AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> I think the point is that when you remove extraneous navigation, you won't
> have any substantial navigation to be skipped over. (And then a skip nav
> link itself would indeed be extraneous.)
Not sure I follow here. Isn't there a value in providing basic site
navigation links on every page? If at the top (when read linearly) of each
page, then won't these need to be skipped over by some users? Or do you
just mean that lots of sites have a site navigation scheme that is too heavy
(long).
> Alternatively, if you put navigation at the end of a page, there's not
> much need to skip over it. Rather, the question is how to indicate, to
> someone consuming the page in linear order, that he has reached the end of
> content proper, so that the rest is navigation or metainformation about
> the page.
Is placing the site navigation links linearly at the end of a page a
recommended best practice, then? I guess you need to indicate the location
of site navigation links to those users somehow, though. Is that what you
mean about finding a way to indicate where the navigation or metainformation
is?
Phil.
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 10:36AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, chnnb wrote:
> Isn't there a value in providing basic site
> navigation links on every page?
Yes, but the value is negative. :-)
Would you like watch TV so that 1/4 of the screen on the left is devoted
to "links" to other channels that you might now be watching?
Site navigation
- wastes screen real estate, which is very relevant to people
using small screens _or_ make use of the "windowing" concept
and have several windows on the screen (e.g., side by side)
- distracts the user, since normally the user is _either_ trying
to understand the content _or_ find his way to more interesting
content; especially if the navigation bar looks nice, it distracts
people who find it difficult to concentrate.
> Is placing the site navigation links linearly at the end of a page a
> recommended best practice, then?
If you ask me, the best way is to include one, two, or three key
navigation links at the end of a page.
> I guess you need to indicate the location
> of site navigation links to those users somehow, though.
Not really.
> Is that what you
> mean about finding a way to indicate where the navigation or metainformation
> is?
No, what I mean is that when the content proper ends, the user should hear
or see a clear indication of this. Naivistically, this could mean the
phrase (End of content of the page.). Using
might be a reasonable compromise.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 11:07AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>> Isn't there a value in providing basic site
>> navigation links on every page?
>
> Yes, but the value is negative. :-)
Huh? Site navigation is a critical wayfinding device.
> Would you like watch TV so that 1/4 of the screen on the left is
> devoted to "links" to other channels that you might now be watching?
TV != web. Tv already has a defined, consistent navigation interface...the
remote control.
> Site navigation
> - wastes screen real estate, which is very relevant to people
> using small screens _or_ make use of the "windowing" concept
> and have several windows on the screen (e.g., side by side)
Navigation isn't a waste. But it shouldn't get in the way of the
content...which is what I think you are actually advocating.
> - distracts the user, since normally the user is _either_ trying
> to understand the content _or_ find his way to more interesting
> content; especially if the navigation bar looks nice, it distracts
> people who find it difficult to concentrate.
That's a bit extreme. That's like saying road signs distract people from
getting to their destination. While that *is* true (road signs do distract),
without them, you wouldn't know where you are going.
-Darrel
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 11:43AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> > I guess you need to indicate the location
> > of site navigation links to those users somehow, though.
>
> Not really.
But how will people know where to find your navigation links then? What if
a new user arrives at such a page?
What I'm wondering is whether or not your solution really gets around the
issue of having an internal page navigation link at the top of the page
(when read linearly).
It seems to me that if you put your primary site navigation links at the end
of the page, then you will need to add an internal page link at the
beginning of the page which will take a user to those links, in which case,
it doesn't seem any better than having a skip navigation link. Both of them
employ internal page navigation links. And in this context, the skip
navigation links at least have the advantage of being a widely understood
practice, and therefore one whose behaviour is relatively predictable to
users. No?
Phil.
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 3:54PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, chnnb wrote:
> But how will people know where to find your navigation links then?
They jump to the end of the page, using whatever function is used for that
in a browser. That's where people go anyway if they wish to find
contextual information and didn't find it at the start.
> What if
> a new user arrives at such a page?
He gets the content first.
> It seems to me that if you put your primary site navigation links at the end
> of the page, then you will need to add an internal page link at the
> beginning of the page which will take a user to those links,
No, why would I need to do that? It would just interfere with the purpose
of presenting the content to the user. You don't to scatter various jumps
around. Normal internal links (to things mentioned before, or to things to
be discussed later) sometimes make sense on long pages; but they are
references to content.
The need for "skip nav" links is created by putting navigation first.
The very observation that such links are need in such cases indicates that
people realize that users need content first. And although the need to
follow a "skip nav" link first when entering a page is less absurd than
the need to listen to a few dozens of navigational links at the start of
every page, it's still an inconvenience.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 4:06PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
jkorpela wrote:
> The need for "skip nav" links is created by putting navigation first.
> The very observation that such links are need in such cases indicates that
> people realize that users need content first.
No it doesn't. It aknowledges the fact that some users want content
first, and others want access to the navigation. It tries to make a
reasonable compromise that serves both. The same can be said about the
"skip to navigation" | content | navigation order. Two sides of the same
coin, two solutions to the same problem inherent in HTML documents: that
navigation and content are not separated properly in the markup, but
share the same space. In an ideal world, these would be completely
separate blocks in the document, and user agents would expose both to
the user and offer an easy way to switch focus between them.
> And although the need to
> follow a "skip nav" link first when entering a page is less absurd than
> the need to listen to a few dozens of navigational links at the start of
> every page, it's still an inconvenience.
Whereas the need to jump to the end of the document and then backtrack
(potentially experiencing the navigation in reverse) is not an
inconvenience?
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 4:15PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, redux wrote:
> Two sides of the same
> coin, two solutions to the same problem inherent in HTML documents: that
> navigation and content are not separated properly in the markup, but
> share the same space. In an ideal world, these would be completely
> separate blocks in the document, and user agents would expose both to
> the user and offer an easy way to switch focus between them.
No disagreement on this. And the idealists could even put the navigation
into elements and say that they _have_ separated navigation from
content.
But the problem is really small unless you make it big. _That_ is the
heart of the problem in practice. It's roughly as big as your set of
navigational links. However if you have several independent sets of
navigational links, it gets _really_ big.
> Whereas the need to jump to the end of the document and then backtrack
> (potentially experiencing the navigation in reverse) is not an
> inconvenience?
Not really, when there's just a small set of navigational links there.
Perhaps just one, pointing to an index page that has site navigation and
little else.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 4:29PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
jkorpela wrote:
> Not really, when there's just a small set of navigational links there.
> Perhaps just one, pointing to an index page that has site navigation and
> little else.
In my mind, however, that then begs the question of how usable such a
solution would be for users who are *not* visually impaired...
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Wed, Nov 10 2004 5:33PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> > But how will people know where to find your navigation links then?
>
> They jump to the end of the page, using whatever function is used for that
> in a browser. That's where people go anyway if they wish to find
> contextual information and didn't find it at the start.
I'm not convinced that is the case. Experienced users will be able to
figure out any site, regardless of what kind of user agent they are using.
But I'm not sure that inexperienced users of screen readers will immediately
assume that they can find site navigation at the end of a page if an
indication about this is not read out immediately. Aren't there lots of
pages that currently use inaccessible image maps or other menus at the top
of a page and which do not include accessible text-only menus at the bottom?
I imagine some users might assume that a page without a standard navigation
at the top or indicated by a link somehow at the beginning of the page might
think that the page is just another one of those inaccessible pages without
functional links. I'm not sure about this, I'm just speculating, but I am
not sure that making no indication of your site navigation system at or
close to the beginning of a page is going to be immediately understood.
And for more experienced users of screen readers, I had the impression that
some of them make extensive use of shortcut keys which will jump through
links based on the first letter, and in such cases, I thought that these
users might actually expect the letter "h" to arrive at the "Home" page link
or the "Help" link, or the letter "c" to lead to "Contact Us" or "e" to lead
to "Email". So, rather than bothering to listen to a full set of navigation
links, they might just try to jump directly to a "Home" page link before
even trying to figure out the full site navigation system. Maybe that is
only true for a small number of users, or maybe it is only true for users
who are familiar with the site in question, but I've sat and browsed with an
experienced JAWS user who seemed to me to use this strategy. Maybe if the
user had not encountered any links at the beginning of the page, they might
have jumped to the end of the page, I'm not sure. Or maybe I didn't quite
understand what the user was doing -- the browser was reading so quickly
that I had difficulty following.
> > Whereas the need to jump to the end of the document and then backtrack
> > (potentially experiencing the navigation in reverse) is not an
> > inconvenience?
>
> Not really, when there's just a small set of navigational links there.
> Perhaps just one, pointing to an index page that has site navigation and
> little else.
I think I understand what you're suggesting now, but it sounds like a
recommendation for future design directions for web design generally, as
opposed to a recommended best practice for current websites generally. Or
like a recommendation for the design of particular kinds of information
sites.
The navigation design structure you are suggesting makes sense, I think, but
it will require a bit of a paradigm shift on the Internet for it to become
*more* comprehensible to the average user than a design which follows the
currently most common standard site navigation design. In terms of
navigation, I think there is a value in following the generally most popular
systems, since users have come to expect certain things on *any* web page: a
link to the home page, a "contact us" or "email" link, an "About Us" link, a
search box if the site is searchable, an "FAQ" link if relevant, a "Support"
or "Help" link if relevant, etc. Meeting a user's expectations about these
things will make your site easier to navigate I think. You'll have to do
some more work to convince me that having only one or two navigation links
on each page will function better than the more common use of a reasonable
set of main navigation links, at least in the context of current web
practices.
Beyond that, I think there are a number of reasons why some users might like
to have access to a more than minimal set of navigation links on any
particular page. One reason is that in some cases, a user does not go
beyond a single page. Having a reasonably full set of well-thought out
navigation links allows such one-stop users to grasp the breadth of the site
without visiting a new page, such as a site map. A web-savvy, sighted user
can make such an assessment quite rapidly I think by simply glancing at a
menu and perhaps floating the mouse pointer across a couple of the items.
The entire mental and visual process can be completed in much less time than
it takes to click a link and load up a new page in a browser I imagine. I
would expect such a user makes a dozen or so quick judgements in a matter of
a couple seconds after first arriving at any site.
Also, in some cases, a user will visit a single page on a site without
looking for any particular content. A user may not know what content they
are looking for, except in a vague way, and so they may end up browsing
aimlessly through various links they got from a friend or from a search
engine. They might just be "surfing", or they might have arrived there by a
link from another site. In such cases, a user may judge the website by both
its "main page content" and also by its "navigation content". A good set of
navigation tools tells such users something about the information
architecture of a site and may suggest to them whether the site will be of
interest to them. If the main "navigation" content is not on the page that
a person views or hears, then a user cannot evaluate that part of the site
without going to a second or additional page.
The navigation system you suggest may be the best possible strategy for
certain kinds of sites, depending on the kind of information being
presented, but I am not sure about pushing it as a best practice for all
sites at the moment.
Phil.
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Nov 11 2004 6:06AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Nov 11 2004 7:47AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> for the user. Assuming that there are a few 'content links' then any
> navigational links should _follow_ these, not precede them,
> regardless of a
> skip-nav link, since a user will not know whether they want
> to search for
> another page until they have reviewed the content links.
But what about situations where there *are* quite a few "content links",
in the case of users with mobility impairments who can see the visual
(css driven) presentation of the site fine, but need to tab their way
through the content before getting to the navigation?
> As a further complication, I believe it is a fairly common
> practice to use
> CSS positioning to move a block of content links from the end
> of a document
> to a side margin, in this case the links are effectively at
> both ends of the
> document, depending on whether a screen reader is used on top
> of a visual
> browser, or a non-CSS browser is used.
Sorry, but...wouldn't the screen reader still read it out in the
order in which it appears in the markup, regardless of any CSS
positioning?
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Nov 11 2004 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Nov 11 2004 9:41AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> My understanding is that this is the primary difference
> between designing for
> a Screen Reader, and designing for an Aural Browser; the
> latter read the HTML
> (and ignore the CSS) while the former interpret the output of
> the underlying
> application, such as IE, and therefore read pretty much
> exactly what is
> displayed on screen, as modified by CSS and Javascript where present.
Well, can't vouch for all screen readers, but certainly JAWS (4.02 anyway)
ignores the "visual" order on screen and reads out the document exactly
as it's marked up in the source (unless, of course, you have some
javascript that munges and reorders the DOM, or CSS which removes elements from
the DOM itself via display:none - although 4.02 still quite happily reads those
out as well). It could be, however, that certain other screen readers do
something more akin to screen scraping, and hence base the order of the output
on the CSS as well.
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 5:58AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 6:14AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> > Well, can't vouch for all screen readers, but certainly JAWS
> > (4.02 anyway) ignores the "visual" order on screen and reads
> > out the document exactly as it's marked up in the source
>
> That's useful to know, but merely enhances the problem: where
> do you put a skip-nav / skip-content link if you can't gauruntee
> that the two blocks will be in the same order for all users?
I hadn't thought about this before as an issue. I don't know about these
other browsers you mention that imitate the order of the positioning
produced by CSS positioning instead of merely following the order of items
in the underlying code itself. The screen readers I know a bit about are:
JAWS, Window-Eyes, and IBM Home Page Reader (this last is a browser, not a
full screen reading program). These all read page content linearly, based
on the actual HTML/XHTML code, I think. Are these other screen readers or
aural browsers or whatever much used currently? I'm not familiar with them.
Phil.
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 7:19AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> That's useful to know, but merely enhances the problem: where
> do you put a
> skip-nav / skip-content link if you can't gauruntee that the
> two blocks will
> be in the same order for all users?
You'd put them very much towards the beginning of the page (both visually and in the markup), as that's where users would expect them, no?
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 8:51AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 9:07AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> From: michael.brockington
> Where do you put skip-nav and skip-content links,
> particularly considering
> that these are actually just two different representations
> of the same code?
[PAGE 1]
[SKIP TO NAVIGATION]
Content
Content
Content
Navigation
Navigation
Navigation
[End PAGE1]
[PAGE 2]
[SKIP TO MAIN CONTENT]
Navigation
Navigation
Navigation
Content
Content
Content
[End PAGE2]
Both in the markup, and visually.
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 9:54AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
> Both in the markup, and visually.
I think the issue is that you can have the same markup and visually present
it differently to different folks.
So, if the markup is this:
content
navigation
it can be displayed as either:
content
navigation
or
navigation
content
by merely changing the CSS.
Most CSS folks go off the assumption that most screen readers read the
screen in 'source order' and they then put content before the navigation in
the source, then merely move the navigatino to the top/left visually.
The question then, is in that scenario, where do you put your skip links?
Personally, I'd probably put a skip-to-content link at the top of the
navigation and a skip-to-navigation link at the top of the content if you
wanted to accomodate a variety of layout variances.
-Darrel
From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 10:16AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | Next message →
>
From: Philip Kiff
Date: Fri, Nov 12 2004 11:01AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions
← Previous message | No next message
> > I think the issue is that you can have the same markup and
> > visually present it differently to different folks.
> >
> > Personally, I'd probably put a skip-to-content link at the
> > top of the navigation and a skip-to-navigation link at the
> > top of the content if you wanted to accomodate a variety of
> > layout variances.
>
> I'm glad to see that someone understood my point.
> Incidentally, I am most familiar with SuperNova, although
> far from expert, and as far as I can tell it truly reads the
> screen, so _does_ take notice of CSS positioning etc.
Ahh. Thanks for pointing that out.
> The only way I can think of to make the links make sense in both
> scenarios is to label them as Jump-to Content/Nav rather than
> Skip, but has Skip become a de-facto standard now?
And now we're back at the question of what phrase is most appropriate to
use. I may have to take back what I said earlier about the word "skip",
since I hadn't thought about it in this context. Not sure what to recommend
now.
Phil.