E-mail List Archives
Thread: Unordered Lists
Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)
From: James Pickering
Date: Sun, Aug 07 2005 12:00PM
Subject: Unordered Lists
No previous message | Next message →
An informative and useful reference:
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/unordered-lists
--
James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/
Accessible to People with Disabilities
RSS feed via RDF/XML
From: James Pickering
Date: Tue, Aug 09 2005 11:09AM
Subject: Re: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Jan,
Thanks for the input and the valuable information you provide. I don't have
JAWS available, but I always have my DeafBlind friend, James Gallagher
<http://www.deafblind.com>; check my pages for unsighted usage sufficiency. I
know that this is only one of several accessibility checks to be run, but I
do find his assessments very valuable.
Here is his critique of my Home Page:
[..... personal material deleted .....]
James I think of you as a friend so I am very pleased that you e-mailed me.
I am always very happy and keen to help you any way I can. You take the
time to try and make your site accessible and also help other sighted
hearing people to
do this same.
[..... personal material deleted .....]
Right down to your web site....
well I have been nice web site using Internet Explorer 5.5 and I have to say
also with Opera 8.2 this is a great tool to use for me now.. A very good
Browser James. Both Browsers with my software to drive my Braille display
worked great with your site. I had no thought for one moment that your site
would bring up a problem for me you put too much hard work into them
for that. I went through your site and found really nothing I could get
you ON!
>Would you please check out my new Home page -- link is in my signature
>block below -- and let me know what you think of it's function and
>accessibility for you?
10+ out of 10. can't find anything to get you ON.....
[..... personal material deleted .....]
Now I know that James is being very kind with his comments out of
friendship, Jan, so I will ask him to re-visit my page with a more critical
eye. I strive to make my pages optimally accessible -- I will keep on
trying. BTW, Jan, I also run my pages by a gentleman named Cody Namesnick
who is afflicted with Duchenne Muscular Distrophy (respirator supported) for
an additional accessibility check when possible. I find the critiques these
gentlemen provide are enormously helpful when combined with manual and
automatic accessibility evaluations.
James Pickering
http://www.jp29.org/
Accessible to People with Disabilities
RSS feed via RDF/XML
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Eric Hellbusch" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:50 AM
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Unordered Lists
> Hello James,
>
>> An informative and useful reference:
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/unordered-lists
>
> Semantically seen, the message is absolutely right.
>
> But, screen readers I know (i.e. JAWS and some German products) treat UL
> as
> soup just as they do DIV. So, if you have an extendd unordered link list
> you
> will get one link after another without semantic information.
>
> Another problem with UL is that it is treated as part of the previous
> block
> element. So, if yoz have a paragraph followed by a UL the only way to get
> to
> the list is by first reading the paragraph (or heading).
>
> There are similar problems with DL.
>
> Not a problem is the use of OL. Even if you hide the list items they will
> be
> accessed by screen readers.
>
> Regs
> Jan
>
> --
> Books on accessible web design:
> www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de/buecher.php
>
>
>
>
>
From: Jan Eric Hellbusch
Date: Tue, Aug 09 2005 11:09AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello James,
> An informative and useful reference:
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/unordered-lists
Semantically seen, the message is absolutely right.
But, screen readers I know (i.e. JAWS and some German products) treat UL as
soup just as they do DIV. So, if you have an extendd unordered link list you
will get one link after another without semantic information.
Another problem with UL is that it is treated as part of the previous block
element. So, if yoz have a paragraph followed by a UL the only way to get to
the list is by first reading the paragraph (or heading).
There are similar problems with DL.
Not a problem is the use of OL. Even if you hide the list items they will be
accessed by screen readers.
Regs
Jan
--
Books on accessible web design:
www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de/buecher.php
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
> Jan Eric Hellbusch says that:
> "JAWS and some German products treat UL as soup just as they do DIV."
I haven't got JAWS on my machine any more, but I seemed to remember that
it would read out "List with X items" and then work through each item
sequentially. Also, in JAWS at least, you can skip the entire UL in one
go with the "L" keystroke (next list). So I'm a bit stumped
that Jan likens them to generic DIVs.
> Can it be that they give higher priority to Technical issues
> (their interpretation of W3C's HTML Specification on mark-up
> and structuring content and WAI's WCAG) and/or Site Design,
> rather than User Experience tests?
We had an admittedly small group of 3 screen reader users look over our
early designs, which includes a UL based navigation, and they all had
nothing but positive (or at least neutral) things to say about that
specific aspect.
> _Non_ of the below Web sites use OL (as recommended by Jan,
> and others!?) for lists of Links.
The problem with OL is that it implies a hierarchy/order that is not
necessarily there; i.e. if I have
1 home
2 products
3 about
4 contact
I'd say that there is an implication of the order in which these sections
should be seen (step 1, step 2, etc) and/or that products are more important
(higher up in the hierarchy) than the about or contact...but I won't get
overly pedantic on this, as it's open to interpretation IMHO.
Patrick
___________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
___________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
___________
From: Jan Eric Hellbusch
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Thomas,
> Regarding list of Links:
>
> Jan Eric Hellbusch says that:
> "JAWS and some German products treat UL as soup just as they do DIV."
>
> What I can remember, I have read the same in some Web forums/articles.
>
> Then, I cannot quite understand why Web sites - that focus on Web
> accessibility issues - use different coding techniques.
This is one of the issues, where screen readers are/were faulty. Untill 4 or
5 years ago, there was very poor support of UL, althought it is one of the
oldest HTML elements.
It's not that the screen readers don't recognize a UL or a DL, rather they
don't allow good navigation within them.
> If links of UL, DIV and DL makes Web site Navigation more
> difficult for some people (only JAWS?), then why do these
> specific Web sites use them?
DIV has no semantic relevance in that sense.
UL and DL should. And for example JAWS does recognize the lists, but
(examples):
- two ULs following each other are treated as one element, i.e. I still
don't know how a JAWS 5.1 user gets to the beginning of the second list
without starting to read from the beginnung of the first list.
- I have experienced screen readers (also JAWS 5.1) reading definition lists
in validated markup as follows: DT, DD+DT, DD+DT ... i.e. the description of
the previous term is treated as one block with the following term.
It is definately a problem in JAWS 5.1 and other screen readers.
And I wouldn't say it makes it more difficult to use a Web site when using
lists, at the present point in time it just doesn't inprove accessibility
substantially.
> Can it be that they give higher priority to Technical issues
> (their interpretation of W3C's HTML Specification on mark-up and
> structuring content and WAI's WCAG) and/or Site Design, rather
> than User Experience tests?
I can't judge that, but they definately have a lot to do also with Office
and especially Windows. The Web (Internet Explorer) is only one application
of many.
Regs
Jan
--
Books on accessible web design:
www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de/buecher.php
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Jan,
Thanks for your reply.
I conclude that you find OL more user friendly as list of links than UL or DIV. I am right?
I did not know that the screen readers (you referred to) read DT, DD+DT, DD+DT.
That's very good to know.
Do you know of a Web sites that list non-graphical browsers that do not have proper Web page rendering (behaviour)?
You said:
"DIV has no semantic relevance in that sense [list of links]."
I agree. But, have you done (or, are aware of) tests that shows that list of links within DIV is easier for (certain) users to use than OL or UL?
If DIV proves to be more user friendly than OL or UL, would you agree that usability should have higher priority than semantics?
You said:
"It's not that the screen readers don't recognize a UL or a DL, rather they don't allow good navigation within them."
Then, what is your thoughts on why some of the 16 Web sites that I mentioned, choose UL and DL as list of links, rather than OL?
All the best,
Thomas Jedenfelt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Eric Hellbusch" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Unordered Lists
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:20:11 +0200
>
> Hello Thomas,
>
> > Regarding list of Links:
> >
> > Jan Eric Hellbusch says that:
> > "JAWS and some German products treat UL as soup just as they do DIV."
> >
> > What I can remember, I have read the same in some Web forums/articles.
> >
> > Then, I cannot quite understand why Web sites - that focus on Web
> > accessibility issues - use different coding techniques.
>
> This is one of the issues, where screen readers are/were faulty. Untill 4 or
> 5 years ago, there was very poor support of UL, althought it is one of the
> oldest HTML elements.
>
> It's not that the screen readers don't recognize a UL or a DL, rather they
> don't allow good navigation within them.
>
> > If links of UL, DIV and DL makes Web site Navigation more
> > difficult for some people (only JAWS?), then why do these
> > specific Web sites use them?
>
> DIV has no semantic relevance in that sense.
>
> UL and DL should. And for example JAWS does recognize the lists, but
> (examples):
>
> - two ULs following each other are treated as one element, i.e. I still
> don't know how a JAWS 5.1 user gets to the beginning of the second list
> without starting to read from the beginnung of the first list.
>
> - I have experienced screen readers (also JAWS 5.1) reading definition lists
> in validated markup as follows: DT, DD+DT, DD+DT ... i.e. the description of
> the previous term is treated as one block with the following term.
>
> It is definately a problem in JAWS 5.1 and other screen readers.
>
> And I wouldn't say it makes it more difficult to use a Web site when using
> lists, at the present point in time it just doesn't inprove accessibility
> substantially.
>
> > Can it be that they give higher priority to Technical issues
> > (their interpretation of W3C's HTML Specification on mark-up and
> > structuring content and WAI's WCAG) and/or Site Design, rather
> > than User Experience tests?
>
> I can't judge that, but they definately have a lot to do also with Office
> and especially Windows. The Web (Internet Explorer) is only one application
> of many.
>
> Regs
> Jan
--
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Patrick,
Thank you for your reply.
Then, I would conclude that you find UL a better choice than OL, and OL a better choice than DIV.
You said that "The problem with OL is that it implies a hierarchy/order that is not necessarily there".
Are you sure that the (your) users, nowadays, find OL more... impractical(?) that UL.
Would you say your visitors would benefit if your organisation would do a new test, to find out how newer user agents best let users navigate links? (e.g. either UL, OL, DIV, P, MAP+E or DL as navigation links)
All the best,
Thomas Jedenfelt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Lauke"
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005
>
> > Jan Eric Hellbusch says that:
> > "JAWS and some German products treat UL as soup just as they do DIV."
>
> I haven't got JAWS on my machine any more, but I seemed to remember that
> it would read out "List with X items" and then work through each item
> sequentially. Also, in JAWS at least, you can skip the entire UL in one
> go with the "L" keystroke (next list). So I'm a bit stumped
> that Jan likens them to generic DIVs.
>
> > Can it be that they give higher priority to Technical issues
> > (their interpretation of W3C's HTML Specification on mark-up and
> > structuring content and WAI's WCAG) and/or Site Design, rather
> > than User Experience tests?
>
> We had an admittedly small group of 3 screen reader users look over our
> early designs, which includes a UL based navigation, and they all had
> nothing but positive (or at least neutral) things to say about that
> specific aspect.
>
> > _Non_ of the below Web sites use OL (as recommended by Jan, and
> > others!?) for lists of Links.
>
> The problem with OL is that it implies a hierarchy/order that is not
> necessarily there; i.e. if I have
>
> 1 home
> 2 products
> 3 about
> 4 contact
>
> I'd say that there is an implication of the order in which these sections
> should be seen (step 1, step 2, etc) and/or that products are more important
> (higher up in the hierarchy) than the about or contact...but I won't get
> overly pedantic on this, as it's open to interpretation IMHO.
>
> Patrick
> ___________
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk
--
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
> Thomas Jedenfelt
> You said that "The problem with OL is that it implies a
> hierarchy/order that is not necessarily there".
> Are you sure that the (your) users, nowadays, find OL more...
> impractical(?) that UL.
I'm not saying that OL is impractical. For the user, it's not that
different from UL. However, it's the wrong element/construct to use
from a web standards / semantic / structural point of view.
And yes, if you want to pay for it, I'd be glad to get more
testing done *grin*
Patrick
___________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
___________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
___________
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
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
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Patrick,
If I, by my questions in this thread, have treated you (or any other person at WebAIM forum) unfairly, I apologize.
I was afraid this might happened, as Web forums cannot show the mood of the questions.
I see Web professionals make different choices, and I want to find out which choice of coding techniques benefits the users the most, or if it does at all.
I have not yet found a forum where people who use non-graphical browsers discuss the Web's usability and accessibility.
Could someone point to such a forum?
Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick H. Lauke"
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005
>
> 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
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Eric Hellbusch"
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005
>
> > An informative and useful reference:
> > http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/unordered-lists
>
> Semantically seen, the message is absolutely right.
>
> But, screen readers I know (i.e. JAWS and some German products) treat UL as
> soup just as they do DIV. So, if you have an extendd unordered link list you
> will get one link after another without semantic information.
>
> Another problem with UL is that it is treated as part of the previous block
> element. So, if yoz have a paragraph followed by a UL the only way to get to
> the list is by first reading the paragraph (or heading).
>
> There are similar problems with DL.
>
> Not a problem is the use of OL. Even if you hide the list items they will be
> accessed by screen readers.
>
> Regs
> Jan
Regarding list of Links:
Jan Eric Hellbusch says that:
"JAWS and some German products treat UL as soup just as they do DIV."
What I can remember, I have read the same in some Web forums/articles.
Then, I cannot quite understand why Web sites - that focus on Web accessibility issues - use different coding techniques.
If links of UL, DIV and DL makes Web site Navigation more difficult for some people (only JAWS?), then why do these specific Web sites use them?
Can it be that they give higher priority to Technical issues (their interpretation of W3C's HTML Specification on mark-up and structuring content and WAI's WCAG) and/or Site Design, rather than User Experience tests?
_Non_ of the below Web sites use OL (as recommended by Jan, and others!?) for lists of Links.
It is very confusing, since the people at below Web sites are _highly_ skilled.
I wish I had the experience of using various versions of Braille, screen reader or voice browser. Then I would know.
Regards,
Thomas Jedenfelt
16 example Web sites (alphabetical),
Coding techniques of lists of Links:
ALA, A List Apart (http://www.alistapart.com/)
<ul>, <dd> containing <ul>
Accessify.com (http://www.accessify.com/)
<div>
AFB, American Foundation for the Blind (http://www.afb.org/)
<div> and <ul>
Dive Into Accessibility (http://diveintoaccessibility.org/)
<ul>
European Design for All e-Accessibility Network
(http://www.e-accessibility.org/)
Table cells (<td> for each link)
ICDRI, International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet
(http://www.icdri.org/)
Table cell with <br>
James Pickering Pages ( http://www.jp29.org/)
<div> and <ul>
Jukka Korpela (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/)
<ul> and nested <ul>
NCBI, National Council for the Blind (http://www.ncbi.ie/)
<div> and <ul>
Soaring Eagle Communications (http://www.webaccessibility.biz/)
<div> and <ul>
University of Salford (http://www.salford.ac.uk/)
<div>, <ul> and nested <ul>
Vision Australia Foundation (http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/)
<div>, <ul> and nested <ul>
WaSP, The Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org/)
<ul>, nested <ul> and <dl>
WAI, Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/)
<ul> (although also <ol>)
WATS.ca, Web Accessibility Testing and Services (http://www.wats.ca/)
<div> and <ul>
WebAIM (http://www.webaim.org/)
<div> and <ul>
--
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:
> If I, by my questions in this thread, have treated you (or any other person at WebAIM forum) unfairly, I apologize.
Hmm...sorry, maybe it was me being a bit on edge and reading an "attack"
when there was nothing but valid questions. Been a long day...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Al Sparber
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: Re: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Thomas Jedenfelt wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> (Also, is really DIV proper semantics as content structure for list
> of links in your Breadcrumb bar?)
Excellent point.
>
> I (Thomas) said:
> "Would you say your visitors would benefit if your organisation
> would
> do a new test, to find out how newer user agents best let users
> navigate links? (e.g. either UL, OL, DIV, P, MAP+E or DL as
> navigation links)"
>From a purely semantics perspective, I think equally valid arguments
can be made for using ordered or unordered lists of links - when
structuring navigation bars. From a practical standpoint, I have no
problem with paragraphs or table cells - or for adjacent links for
widgets such as breadcrumb trails.
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
From: Jan Eric Hellbusch
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | Next message →
Hello Thomas,
> I conclude that you find OL more user friendly as list of links
> than UL or DIV. I am right?
As Patrick mentioned, there are other aspects to the matter.
If we are talking about screen reader access - and only screen reader - then
OL is definately easier to navigate than UL. The question which then arises,
is when a UL is still appropiate. A short list will still be fine, but as
mentioned in an earlier mail, ULs are "added" to the prvious block element.
And if there several ULs after each other, they are all added together to
the previous block element. Patrick mentioned the L key - it would be useful
if all users in question were familiar with it.
> Do you know of a Web sites that list non-graphical browsers that
> do not have proper Web page rendering (behaviour)?
I'm afraid not. The bits of information are just from our testing
experiences in the last few years.
> You said:
> "DIV has no semantic relevance in that sense [list of links]."
> I agree. But, have you done (or, are aware of) tests that shows
> that list of links within DIV is easier for (certain) users to
> use than OL or UL?
No. DIV should only be used for layout. It is from my point of view very
good, that screen readers I have used don't get down to DIV and SPAN.
> If DIV proves to be more user friendly than OL or UL, would you
> agree that usability should have higher priority than semantics?
I can't think of a situation, where DIV might have an influence on screen
reader usability. But certainly usability should have a higher priority than
semantics.
> You said:
> "It's not that the screen readers don't recognize a UL or a DL,
> rather they don't allow good navigation within them."
>
> Then, what is your thoughts on why some of the 16 Web sites that
> I mentioned, choose UL and DL as list of links, rather than OL?
Longer lists should be broken down into seperate lists, e.g. main navigation
and others. If using UL: a block element before the UL helps find the
beginning of the list (I use H6 and shove it out of the viewport). If using
DL: I don't have a solution for that, it seems to be a screen reader
problem.
Regs
Jan
--
Books on accessible web design:
www.barrierefreies-webdesign.de/buecher.php
From: Thomas Jedenfelt
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:13AM
Subject: RE: Unordered Lists
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Patrick,
You said:
"I'm not saying that OL is impractical. For the user, it's not that different from UL."
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)
You said:
"However, it's [OL] the wrong element/construct to use from a web standards / semantic / structural point of view."
If OL would prove to be more user friendly than UL, 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?
(Also, is really DIV proper semantics as content structure for list of links in your Breadcrumb bar?)
I (Thomas) said:
"Would you say your visitors would benefit if your organisation would do a new test, to find out how newer user agents best let users navigate links? (e.g. either UL, OL, DIV, P, MAP+E or DL as navigation links)"
Then you said:
"And yes, if you want to pay for it [tests], I'd be glad to get more testing done *grin*"
Does it have to cost anything (or very much)? Why not let the students make such tests as a special course/extra study (or what you call it)?
(answer if you find your effort worthwhile - it's ok)
Thanks,
Thomas Jedenfelt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Lauke"
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005
>
> > Thomas Jedenfelt
>
> > You said that "The problem with OL is that it implies a
> > hierarchy/order that is not necessarily there".
> > Are you sure that the (your) users, nowadays, find OL more...
> > impractical(?) that UL.
>
> I'm not saying that OL is impractical. For the user, it's not that
> different from UL. However, it's the wrong element/construct to use
> from a web standards / semantic / structural point of view.
>
> And yes, if you want to pay for it, I'd be glad to get more
> testing done *grin*
>
> Patrick
> ___________
> Patrick H. Lauke
> Webmaster / University of Salford
> http://www.salford.ac.uk
--
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze