E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Rethinking "Skip to Content"

Number of posts in this thread: 21 (In chronological order)

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:12AM
Subject: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
No previous message | Next message →

Thanks to all who answered my questions about EX and EM.

Now I'd like to share something I've been thinking about regarding screen
readers and the "Skip to Main Content" (and its many variations) link. There
was a discussion here recently about how, exactly, this should be phrased. I
have a different idea on this, and would like some feedback.

The word "skip", whether used to imply bypassing a specific something, or
simply moving past a general something to something else, seems more
confusing than helpful. It seems to me that, to an individual using a screen
reader, a link helping them "skip" or "skip to" something has less meaning
than a link that helps them simply "Go to". Because different sites are
structured so differently, "skipping" isn't quite consistent. One knows well
enough what one is skipping in the case of a "Skip Navigation" link, but
what is one skipping to? And, in the case of the link "Skip to Content",
what, exactly is one skipping over? "Skip over navigation to main content"
seems to give a decent explanation of what is going on, but there's still
this skipping business.

My other problem involves the assumption that all visitors will want to read
the page content first, especially when the structure of a page lists the
content first (hence no "skip menu" link). I have read countless accounts of
studies where folks using screen-readers wanted content first, but I image
that there are many folks, especially repeat visitors with a particular
destination or area in mind, who want to get right to the menu.

Therefore, wouldn't it be more useful to include two links near the
beginning of each page read-out, called, "Go to page content" and "Go to web
site menu".

I know that many screen readers allow a user to jump from one link to the
next, which might make this a minor point. But if I am correct in my
assumptions, it also seems a small thing to do to make browsing the web that
much clearer.

Since I don't have access to a screen reader, I have had to do a lot of
reading up on them and use a lot of my imagination in figuring out how they
will render my pages. Therefore, I am very interested to know what others
with more experience think.

Best Regards,

Dagmar

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:23AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: intern.wincog

> I know that many screen readers allow a user to jump from one
> link to the
> next,

aeh...every browser lets you do this (most of them use the TAB key).
Or did you mean "functional block" (or similar) instead of link?
Indeed, JAWS for instance lets you jump from paragraph to paragraph,
list to list, etc. My main concern with skip/go-to links however are
users without screenreader who rely on keyboard and/or switch access
(e.g. users with mobility impairments)

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

From: julian.rickards
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Interesting thoughts Dagmar.

Those who use JAWS as the screen reader tend to use IE as the browser and
presumably do not disable styles in IE. Based on this series of assumptions,
JAWS will read the content in "visible" order, not necessarily source order.
Therefore, content appears after navbars (except footer navbars).

If you were to use CSS for layout, you can change the source order of the
content so that the content appears first, then navbars, etc. However, the
JAWS/IE assumption I made earlier would still read the page in visible order
but for those who either disable styles or use another browser that does not
support styles, they would read the content first. I personally create the
HTML in the same order as it ends up being styled: top-bottom, left-right
because it is easier to create a floating layout but other orders are
possible with a bit more effort to style the page so that the content
appears as header/navbar/content/footer from top-bottom, left-right.

It is difficult to know what the end user wants when they encounter a page.
They may know that the page they wish to read is three links from the home
page of the site and therefore would want to use the navbar to get to that
page. In other cases where the article is divided into multiple pages such
as those you find at webmonkey.com, sitepoint.com, and webreference.com (and
others of course), they may wish to simply skip from the "bottom" of one
page in the article to the top of the next page in the article and skip past
the navigation, advertising, etc just as sighted persons skip past this
"fluff".

Yes, "skip" may not be the best word, "go to" may be a better choice.

Jules

From: michael.brockington
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:39AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:42AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: julian.rickards

> Those who use JAWS as the screen reader tend to use IE as the
> browser and
> presumably do not disable styles in IE. Based on this series
> of assumptions,
> JAWS will read the content in "visible" order, not
> necessarily source order.

Veering slightly off at a tangent, but just wondering:
is that a new feature of JAWS? I have 4.02 (admittedly quite old),
and it sticks religiously to code order (and also, surprisingly,
reads out elements that have been marked as display:none in the
CSS - albeit my stylesheets are @imported, so that may explain why)

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

From: Jeff Coburn
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 9:42AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

In my mind I think of "skip" as going to something within the page that
I am viewing. When I see "go to" I assume that it is a link to something
off the page I am viewing. So when I see "skip to content" I assume it
is taking me down the page I am on to the content. If I see "go to site
map" I assume it is taking me off the page to another page with a site
map. I am just giving you my perspective, which may be different from
the majority of users. I am just an unfrozen caveman lawyer:)

-jc

julian.rickards wrote:
> Interesting thoughts Dagmar.
>
> Those who use JAWS as the screen reader tend to use IE as the browser and
> presumably do not disable styles in IE. Based on this series of assumptions,
> JAWS will read the content in "visible" order, not necessarily source order.
> Therefore, content appears after navbars (except footer navbars).
>
> If you were to use CSS for layout, you can change the source order of the
> content so that the content appears first, then navbars, etc. However, the
> JAWS/IE assumption I made earlier would still read the page in visible order
> but for those who either disable styles or use another browser that does not
> support styles, they would read the content first. I personally create the
> HTML in the same order as it ends up being styled: top-bottom, left-right
> because it is easier to create a floating layout but other orders are
> possible with a bit more effort to style the page so that the content
> appears as header/navbar/content/footer from top-bottom, left-right.
>
> It is difficult to know what the end user wants when they encounter a page.
> They may know that the page they wish to read is three links from the home
> page of the site and therefore would want to use the navbar to get to that
> page. In other cases where the article is divided into multiple pages such
> as those you find at webmonkey.com, sitepoint.com, and webreference.com (and
> others of course), they may wish to simply skip from the "bottom" of one
> page in the article to the top of the next page in the article and skip past
> the navigation, advertising, etc just as sighted persons skip past this
> "fluff".
>
> Yes, "skip" may not be the best word, "go to" may be a better choice.
>
> Jules
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>

From: KNOCK Alistair
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 10:03AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> Therefore, wouldn't it be more useful to include two links
> near the beginning of each page read-out, called, "Go to page
> content" and "Go to web site menu".

It's a grand idea, but beware of becoming too verbose. You could end up
with two sets of those links, one in the navigation bar and one in the
content. Or one at the start and end of the content, like "Back to top"
buttons (instead, why not explain how useful the Home key/function is).
Or a "Go to the bit just before the footer where the fun stuff starts"
link...

These kind of links should NOT be necessary in the first place; page
navigation should be managed by the user agent and not instigated by the
developer. Markup languages and subsequently UAs should allow site
navigation sections to have their own tags or to be referenced in
separate includes/sections. (e.g. use of the tag, nl for
navigation list, or between and )

Whatever way it's done the objective should be allow the user agent and
hence the user, to distinguish immediately between the parts of the page
which refer to content, and the parts which refer to site navigation.
You can then get rid of the bloat and all the style-conscious designers
can breathe a sigh of relief that they don't need to hide those "ugly"
links any more.

Cheers,
Alistair

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 10:06AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> Therefore, wouldn't it be more useful to include two links
> near the beginning of each page read-out, called, "Go to page
> content" and "Go to web site menu".

Dagmar, I think you're touching on an interesting point here. A "skip
navigation" link makes sense only because the current mode of Web design
has the content after the navigation and a lot of the time you want to
get past the navigation to get to the content. There's a historic cause.
This mode has been developed with the large 2 dimensional visual display
in mind. The accepted wisdom is that for this access medium, shared
navigation should go along the top and left with the content below and
to the right. This is all well and good for visual page layout but
unfortunately, due to the way people have coded pages (until CSS), this
has had a knock-on effect on screen readers and other linear access
devices because the browser's presentation order followed the code
order. So the designer's desired visual ordering of navigation and
content determined the code order. Screen readers and other linear
access devices read the code order. Now that screen layout has been
separated from code order, it is possible to think again about the best
arrangement of navigation and content for individual devices. Or even
individual users.

What I'd like to know is what other arrangements of content and
navigation might be possible and useful now. We have ,navigation first
then content' and 'content first then navigation'. Are there other
alternatives?

Your idea of two links "Go to page content" and "Go to web site menu"
reminds me of the time when all "decent" websites had two frames. One
contained the navigation and the other the page content. I've never
quite understood why that was dropped. As long as the frames are
labelled correctly, what is the problem? Perhaps someone can enlighten
me (without saying it's to do with lack of support because that applies
to everything until it becomes a de facto standard).

Incidentally, you could drop the "Go to" and the "web" parts of your
link titles because they are implicit. You only need "Page content" and
"Site menu".

Mark

Dr. Mark Magennis
Centre for Inclusive Technology
National Council for the Blind of Ireland
Whitworth Road, Dublin 9, Republic of Ireland

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = tel: +353 (0)71 914 7464

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 11:09AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

mark.magennis wrote:

> Dagmar, I think you're touching on an interesting point here. A "skip
> navigation" link makes sense only because the current mode of Web design
> has the content after the navigation and a lot of the time you want to
> get past the navigation to get to the content.

Keep in mind, though, that "content first, navigation later" can be just as
annoying to users who actually *do* want to get to the navigation, in cases
where there are a kit if links or form elements in the main content.
There is
no single order that will work for all users or in all scenarios...

> What I'd like to know is what other arrangements of content and
> navigation might be possible and useful now. We have ,navigation first
> then content' and 'content first then navigation'. Are there other
> alternatives?

In an ideal world, navigation would be completely separated from actual
content. This can already partially be achieved by using
elements, but it's obviously not workable for mainstream sites
(and not just because IE completely fails to expose those navigation
links to the user in any way). However, this could be an option if you
have server-side capabilities like XSLT - you could allow users to choose
their preferred delivery method: content/navigation, navigation/content,
content plus navigation as link elements...

> Incidentally, you could drop the "Go to" and the "web" parts of your
> link titles because they are implicit. You only need "Page content" and
> "Site menu".
Indeed, screenreaders would more than likely announce something like
"same page link" (JAWS at least). but still, for those people not using a
screenreader, it may still not be clear enough that those links don't go
to a separate page, but are just there to access certain parts of the
current page.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
_____________________________________________________
re

From: Mike Moore
Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 2:50PM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> Since I don't have access to a screen reader, I have had to do a lot of
reading up on them and use a lot of my imagination in figuring out how they
will >render my pages. Therefore, I am very interested to know what others
with more experience think.

I would recommend downloading a trial version of Jaws, Window Eyes, or Home
Page Reader. I have used both HPR and Jaws for testing, HPR has a faster
learning curve but the demo ends in 30 days. You can keep using the Jaws
demo if you don't mind rebooting your system... I have links on my site for
demos of all three on this page
http://www.knowbility.org/air-austin/?content=developerResources&;area=common

best regards,

mike

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 9:45AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

>From: Patrick Lauke
>Date: Thu, Dec 02 2004 09:23:22 AM
..Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"

>> From: intern.wincog

>> I know that many screen readers allow a user to jump from one
>> link to the
>> next,

>aeh...every browser lets you do this (most of them use the TAB key).
>Or did you mean "functional block" (or similar) instead of link?

I meant links. Since menus are generally made up of a clump of links,
someone wanting to find the menu quickly might have some luck finding it
quickly by just reading out the links.

I knew JAWS could jump from header to header, but didn't realize it would
skim other functional elements as well.

This suggests to me that the "Skip/Go" links aren't as vital to
screen-readers as I first thought they were (unless other screen readers do
not have that same functionality), but are important to those who are
tab-browsing. However, most of the time those links are "hidden", so what
good are they to those individuals?

Thanks to Mike Moore for the demo links. I will download these when I think
I can make the most out of the trial periods.

(Side note-- I can tab-browse with Mozilla, but can't seem to do it using IE
or Opera. What gives?)

Dagmar

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 9:57AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> From: intern.wincog

> However, most of the time those links are
> "hidden", so what
> good are they to those individuals?

That's the conundrum, indeed.

> (Side note-- I can tab-browse with Mozilla, but can't seem to
> do it using IE
> or Opera. What gives?)

Works fine in IE, so not sure what the problem is. In Opera,
however, normal tabbing will only go from one form element to
the next. For links, use CTRL and cursor up/down for previous/next
link.

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

From: michael.brockington
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 9:57AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 10:16AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Both Mike Brockington and Jeff Coburn bring up the point that 'skip' implies
going somewhere else on the page, and without that it implies travel to a
completely separate page.

This is something I considered as well when I first began my musings.
However, it would seem to me that the convention of 'skip' indicating a move
within a page is limited to the 'skip/go' situation, and not all same-page
target links. I rarely see the word 'skip' worked into sub-menus that jump
folks to topics within a particular page, and I always assumed that
individuals using the links were ok with being jumped about the same page
without knowing that's where they were going.

However- and this will take this discussion off in another direction- for
what it is worth, as a user I have always had an aversion to page targets.
This aversion began back when I was first introduced to the web world on a
very slow modem. If I clicked on a link, unaware it was a same-page target
link, and the page was a slow-loader, it would inevitable jump me (albeit
temporarily) to something that had nothing to do with the topic I was
interested in. Eventually I learned to look for the # in the link and simply
be patient, but I have always found same-page target links disorienting.
Nevertheless, I sometimes use them because I think, well, that something is
just something wrong with me. :)

Am I unique, or has this been an issue for others? How is it addressed, if
it is addressed at all?

Perhaps the answer here lies in the comments of a couple posters regarding
letting the user agent determine navigation. But I believe Mike noted the
poor support of this at the moment. So...in the meantime, what?

Dagmar

From: Sachin Dev Pavithran
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 10:26AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Being a user of JAWS, I am really glad when there is a skip navigation link.
This is the only link I really care about. As far as the wording whether
"skip to" or "go to" it doesn't really matter. Although I do think "skip"
makes more sense to me. To me it means to jump over a certain content
within the page and get me to the part of the page that link was referring
to. In JAWS if a link is a link within the page, JAWS does speak out "This
Page Link". and if it is a link to a different page, all that JAWS says is
"Link". Now I am not sure whether this has anything to do with coding.

Sachin

From: Sachin Dev Pavithran
Date: Fri, Dec 03 2004 11:36AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Bob Easton
Date: Mon, Dec 06 2004 4:49AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

intern.wincog wrote:
> Thanks to all who answered my questions about EX and EM.
>
> Now I'd like to share something I've been thinking about regarding screen
> readers and the "Skip to Main Content" (and its many variations) link. There
> was a discussion here recently about how, exactly, this should be phrased. I
> have a different idea on this, and would like some feedback.
>
> The word "skip", whether used to imply bypassing a specific something, or
> simply moving past a general something to something else, seems more
> confusing than helpful. ... remainder snipped

While you make logical points about the finer linguistic implications, I
would not seriously consider changing the common practice.

As the usabilty guru, Jakob Nielsen, remind us, we often find
"standards" evolving from widespread common practice. "Skip ..." is one
of those common practices. Those words have been the recommneded
approach for several years, are taught by dozens (if not hundreds) of
accessibility tutorials, and are embedded in the W3C's WAI and WCAG
initiatives.

I'm sure that many blind people, such as one of the respondents here,
can easily use either technique, the common practice is "Skip ..." and
we should stick with it simply because it has become a defacto standard.

--
Bob Easton

From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Dec 06 2004 5:57AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

From: reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
Date: Wed, Dec 08 2004 6:44AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

This is one of the reasons why there needs to be more user research
and testing to give flesh to the WCAG guidelines. While we can all
offer arguments as to why one or another approach to wording might or
might not be a good idea, the only real way to know is to test it with
people who rely on these links.

Cheers,
Dey

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:14:33 -0500, intern.wincog wrote:
>
> Thanks to all who answered my questions about EX and EM.
>
> Now I'd like to share something I've been thinking about regarding screen
> readers and the "Skip to Main Content" (and its many variations) link. There
> was a discussion here recently about how, exactly, this should be phrased. I
> have a different idea on this, and would like some feedback.
>
> The word "skip", whether used to imply bypassing a specific something, or
> simply moving past a general something to something else, seems more
> confusing than helpful. It seems to me that, to an individual using a screen
> reader, a link helping them "skip" or "skip to" something has less meaning
> than a link that helps them simply "Go to". Because different sites are
> structured so differently, "skipping" isn't quite consistent. One knows well
> enough what one is skipping in the case of a "Skip Navigation" link, but
> what is one skipping to? And, in the case of the link "Skip to Content",
> what, exactly is one skipping over? "Skip over navigation to main content"
> seems to give a decent explanation of what is going on, but there's still
> this skipping business.
>
> My other problem involves the assumption that all visitors will want to read
> the page content first, especially when the structure of a page lists the
> content first (hence no "skip menu" link). I have read countless accounts of
> studies where folks using screen-readers wanted content first, but I image
> that there are many folks, especially repeat visitors with a particular
> destination or area in mind, who want to get right to the menu.
>
> Therefore, wouldn't it be more useful to include two links near the
> beginning of each page read-out, called, "Go to page content" and "Go to web
> site menu".
>
> I know that many screen readers allow a user to jump from one link to the
> next, which might make this a minor point. But if I am correct in my
> assumptions, it also seems a small thing to do to make browsing the web that
> much clearer.
>
> Since I don't have access to a screen reader, I have had to do a lot of
> reading up on them and use a lot of my imagination in figuring out how they
> will render my pages. Therefore, I am very interested to know what others
> with more experience think.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Dagmar
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>

From: Priti Rohra
Date: Thu, Dec 09 2004 12:26AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi,

Being a jaws user I really appreciate the skip to content link. As long as
this link is available, the wording doesn't matter. But I do agree that use
of common word is helpful. As accessibility is not only for screen reader
users. If the skip to content link is visible, different words may confuse
users with multiple disabilities, such as users with both cognitive and
mobility disabilities.

Regards,
Priti...
----- Original Message -----
From: "deyalexander"
To: "WebAIM Discussion List"
Sent: December 08, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Rethinking "Skip to Content"

>
> This is one of the reasons why there needs to be more user research
> and testing to give flesh to the WCAG guidelines. While we can all
> offer arguments as to why one or another approach to wording might or
> might not be a good idea, the only real way to know is to test it with
> people who rely on these links.
>
> Cheers,
> Dey
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:14:33 -0500, intern.wincog
wrote:
> >
> > Thanks to all who answered my questions about EX and EM.
> >
> > Now I'd like to share something I've been thinking about regarding
screen
> > readers and the "Skip to Main Content" (and its many variations) link.
There
> > was a discussion here recently about how, exactly, this should be
phrased. I
> > have a different idea on this, and would like some feedback.
> >
> > The word "skip", whether used to imply bypassing a specific something,
or
> > simply moving past a general something to something else, seems more
> > confusing than helpful. It seems to me that, to an individual using a
screen
> > reader, a link helping them "skip" or "skip to" something has less
meaning
> > than a link that helps them simply "Go to". Because different sites are
> > structured so differently, "skipping" isn't quite consistent. One knows
well
> > enough what one is skipping in the case of a "Skip Navigation" link, but
> > what is one skipping to? And, in the case of the link "Skip to Content",
> > what, exactly is one skipping over? "Skip over navigation to main
content"
> > seems to give a decent explanation of what is going on, but there's
still
> > this skipping business.
> >
> > My other problem involves the assumption that all visitors will want to
read
> > the page content first, especially when the structure of a page lists
the
> > content first (hence no "skip menu" link). I have read countless
accounts of
> > studies where folks using screen-readers wanted content first, but I
image
> > that there are many folks, especially repeat visitors with a particular
> > destination or area in mind, who want to get right to the menu.
> >
> > Therefore, wouldn't it be more useful to include two links near the
> > beginning of each page read-out, called, "Go to page content" and "Go to
web
> > site menu".
> >
> > I know that many screen readers allow a user to jump from one link to
the
> > next, which might make this a minor point. But if I am correct in my
> > assumptions, it also seems a small thing to do to make browsing the web
that
> > much clearer.
> >
> > Since I don't have access to a screen reader, I have had to do a lot of
> > reading up on them and use a lot of my imagination in figuring out how
they
> > will render my pages. Therefore, I am very interested to know what
others
> > with more experience think.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Dagmar
> >
> > ----
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
> >
> >
>
> ----
> To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>

From: Dagmar Noll
Date: Mon, Dec 13 2004 8:14AM
Subject: Re: Rethinking "Skip to Content"
← Previous message | No next message

>This is one of the reasons why there needs to be more user research
>and testing to give flesh to the WCAG guidelines. While we can all
>offer arguments as to why one or another approach to wording might or
>might not be a good idea, the only real way to know is to test it with
>people who rely on these links.
>
>Cheers,
>Dey

I agree.

Thanks to those who presented their thoughts on this, especially those who
use JAWS as their primary link to the 'net.

Best,

Dagmar