WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Question on "skip to main content"

for

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

From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 11:45AM
Subject: Question on "skip to main content"
No previous message | Next message →

Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
either hidden or visible?

Thanks in advance

Nancy

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:00PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nancy Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
> of 508.  If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
> either hidden or visible?

There is no "updated version of 508". There have been recommendations
made to the Access Board for possible updates, but we are at least 2
or 3 years away from any updates being made. The recommendations made
did not include a requirement for "skip" links. The recommendations
were quite similar to WCAG 2.0 in this regard.

The Access Board has indicated that they will release an initial draft
version of their proposed updates in the near future, so we'll know
their intention regarding "skip" links soon.

I should also note that "skip" links (whether visible or not) are not
necessarily a requirement of the current Section 508 language which
simply requires that "A method shall be provided that permits users to
skip repetitive navigation links."

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:05PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

I generally recommend WebAIM's "visible on focus" strategy:

http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus

--Jane Vincent, Center for Accessible Technology

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

From: Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 11:00 AM

Not sure if they are a requirement for Section 508 but they should be visible.

cheers

Geof



At 01:43 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
>of 508.  If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
>either hidden or visible?
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Nancy
>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:10PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Not sure if they are a requirement for Section 508 but they should be visible.

cheers

Geof



At 01:43 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
>of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
>either hidden or visible?
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Nancy
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:15PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

I'll add that the current 508 doesn't require "skip links" either. It requires a method to skip repetitive content, and many people consider structure in the form of headings to be sufficient.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick

Senior Product Manager, Accessibility

Adobe Systems

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:00 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nancy Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
> of 508.  If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
> either hidden or visible?

There is no "updated version of 508". There have been recommendations
made to the Access Board for possible updates, but we are at least 2
or 3 years away from any updates being made. The recommendations made
did not include a requirement for "skip" links. The recommendations
were quite similar to WCAG 2.0 in this regard.

The Access Board has indicated that they will release an initial draft
version of their proposed updates in the near future, so we'll know
their intention regarding "skip" links soon.

I should also note that "skip" links (whether visible or not) are not
necessarily a requirement of the current Section 508 language which
simply requires that "A method shall be provided that permits users to
skip repetitive navigation links."

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:20PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

As Jared noted, 508 hasn't really been "updated" yet. At the moment the
present state (AIUI) is that the TEITAC committee has submitted its
recommendations and the Access Board is working to reconcile that report
plus public comments and other feedback into a final version which must
then also submit their version for approval.

As a more direct answer to the question (and an addition to what Jared and
Andrew have said), the notes I have from reading the TEITAC report when it
was finished is that 1194.22(o) is "gone".

The conventional wisdom at the moment is that there will be significant
"harmonization" between the refreshed version and WCAG 2.0. WCAG 2.0
currently has guideline 3.2.3: Consistent Navigation: Navigational
mechanisms that are repeated on multiple Web pages within a set of Web
pages occur in the same relative order each time they are repeated,
unless a change is initiated by the user. (Level AA)
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#consistent-behavior-consist
ent-locations

One of the "Success Criteria" for that guideline is the use of a method to
skip *to* navigation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-consistent-l
ocations.html


As Andrew mentioned, others consider a document with proper structure,
content chunking and clear headings to be sufficient for this specific
issue and I tend to personally agree with him. On the other hand, given
that websites usually are not structured properly to support this, a "Skip
link" is a good alternative.



Karl Groves
Director of Strategic Planning and Product Development
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8961 (o)
443.889.8763 (c)
http://www.ssbbartgroup.com

Accessibility-On-Demand


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:webaim-forum-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Nancy Johnson
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:44 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
>
> Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
> of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
> either hidden or visible?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Nancy
>

From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:25PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

What good does that do for someone who doesn't have the ability to
use them for skipping over blocks of text?




At 02:02 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>I'll add that the current 508 doesn't require "skip links"
>either. It requires a method to skip repetitive content, and many
>people consider structure in the form of headings to be sufficient.
>
>Thanks,
>AWK
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
>Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
>
>Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
>Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:00 PM
>To: WebAIM Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
>
>On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nancy Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
> > of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
> > either hidden or visible?
>
>There is no "updated version of 508". There have been recommendations
>made to the Access Board for possible updates, but we are at least 2
>or 3 years away from any updates being made. The recommendations made
>did not include a requirement for "skip" links. The recommendations
>were quite similar to WCAG 2.0 in this regard.
>
>The Access Board has indicated that they will release an initial draft
>version of their proposed updates in the near future, so we'll know
>their intention regarding "skip" links soon.
>
>I should also note that "skip" links (whether visible or not) are not
>necessarily a requirement of the current Section 508 language which
>simply requires that "A method shall be provided that permits users to
>skip repetitive navigation links."
>
>Jared Smith
>WebAIM
>

From: Nancy Johnson
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:30PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Thank you.

I meant the version that is in the works and I didn't realize the
upgrade was so far away. A year ago I went to a presentation on the
possible updates to 508 and it seemed that the group working on it had
just handed it over the the Access Board.

The question came up because I just received the css and mock up with
hidden skip to main content links in them.

Nancy



On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nancy Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated version
>> of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it be
>> either hidden or visible?
>
> There is no "updated version of 508". There have been recommendations
> made to the Access Board for possible updates, but we are at least 2
> or 3 years away from any updates being made. The recommendations made
> did not include a requirement for "skip" links. The recommendations
> were quite similar to WCAG 2.0 in this regard.
>
> The Access Board has indicated that they will release an initial draft
> version of their proposed updates in the near future, so we'll know
> their intention regarding "skip" links soon.
>
> I should also note that "skip" links (whether visible or not) are not
> necessarily a requirement of the current Section 508 language which
> simply requires that "A method shall be provided that permits users to
> skip repetitive navigation links."
>
> Jared Smith
> WebAIM
>

From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:35PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Conceptually, the idea is that you should layout the content so that
sections (including sections of the interface) are preceded by headings -
this includes the navigation, for instance as well as the content. Then
assistive technology users could do things like pull up the headings list
to jump to the area they needed.

HTML5 will have some additional elements which, if used properly, could
enhance this capability, such as the new 'section' and 'nav' elements.


Karl Groves
Director of Strategic Planning and Product Development
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8961 (o)
443.889.8763 (c)
http://www.ssbbartgroup.com

Accessibility-On-Demand


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:webaim-forum-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Geof Collis
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
>
>
> What good does that do for someone who doesn't have the ability to
> use them for skipping over blocks of text?
>
>
>
>
> At 02:02 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
> >I'll add that the current 508 doesn't require "skip links"
> >either. It requires a method to skip repetitive content, and many
> >people consider structure in the form of headings to be sufficient.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >AWK
> >
> >Andrew Kirkpatrick
> >
> >Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
> >
> >Adobe Systems
> >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
> >Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:00 PM
> >To: WebAIM Discussion List
> >Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
> >
> >On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nancy Johnson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> > > Are "Skip to main content" links a requirement for the updated
> version
> > > of 508. If so, is the requirement that it remain visible or can it
> be
> > > either hidden or visible?
> >
> >There is no "updated version of 508". There have been recommendations
> >made to the Access Board for possible updates, but we are at least 2
> >or 3 years away from any updates being made. The recommendations made
> >did not include a requirement for "skip" links. The recommendations
> >were quite similar to WCAG 2.0 in this regard.
> >
> >The Access Board has indicated that they will release an initial draft
> >version of their proposed updates in the near future, so we'll know
> >their intention regarding "skip" links soon.
> >
> >I should also note that "skip" links (whether visible or not) are not
> >necessarily a requirement of the current Section 508 language which
> >simply requires that "A method shall be provided that permits users to
> >skip repetitive navigation links."
> >
> >Jared Smith
> >WebAIM
> >

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:40PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

A few thoughts:

- Section 508 does not directly require "skip" links. It does require
"a method" of skipping repeated navigation.

- Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
(except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
2002).

- Thus, a "skip" link is currently the best way of addressing the
needs of sighted keyboard users. As such, using the "visible on focus"
approach (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus) is
acceptable, so long as the "skip" link is readily visible when it is
'tabbed' to. An always-visible "skip" link does convey a pretty strong
statement of commitment to accessibility.

- ARIA landmarks provide a MUCH better solution to all of this because
they not only provide targets for keyboard navigation, but the areas
of the page are given descriptive identifiers (search, main,
navigation, etc.). But again, ARIA landmarks are not yet supported in
browsers, except with the use of screen readers - so they do not yet
benefit sighted keyboard users.

In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
accessibility remains "skip" links.

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Karl Groves
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 12:45PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

> In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
> simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
> users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
> duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
> this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
> widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
> accessibility remains "skip" links.


I hate "me too" posts, but I am definitely submitting this as a me too
post.



Karl Groves
Director of Strategic Planning and Product Development
SSB BART Group
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
703.637.8961 (o)
443.889.8763 (c)
http://www.ssbbartgroup.com

Accessibility-On-Demand

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 1:50PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Jared Smith wrote:

> - Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
> this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
> (except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
> navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
> been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
> 2002).

The argument then of course is: if a sighted user has to rely on
keyboard navigation (or keyboard-like interfaces), then surely they
should also be using the correct tools (browsers) for that. Yes, yes, if
they're in a library, public access area, or the infamous internet
cafe', then that may not be the case (although a follow-up argument then
is that the library etc should provide reasonable accommodation for
customers with those needs...e.g. having something other than, say, IE
available)...

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: Jared Smith
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 2:00PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> The argument then of course is: if a sighted user has to rely on
> keyboard navigation (or keyboard-like interfaces), then surely they
> should also be using the correct tools (browsers) for that.

I think that many (most?) users that use the keyboard exclusively do
use tools to facilitate keyboard accessibility. The problem is that
standard browsers should all provide at least minimal levels of
keyboard accessibility as is recommended by the User Agent
Accessibility Guidelines. We're not talking anything earth-shattering
here - just basic functionality to navigate by a few common elements
(form fields, headings, lists, etc.) would do tremendous good... and
not only for those that require them - I'd *LOVE* the ability to
browse a page headings using the keyboard (without switching to Opera
to do so).

And while Patrick is participating in this discussion, I think it
fitting to point out a wonderful presentation he gave on some other
aspects of keyboard accessibility: Keyboard accessibility - basic
steps towards a more usable and accessible site -
http://www.splintered.co.uk/news/112/

Jared

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 2:05PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

How is any user supposed to even know that a user agent exists with the
facility to use headings for navigation? It's not as if Opera is well known.
Users just see the text and know nothing of semantic structure, so why would
they even think that such a means of navigation is possible?

Oh, I know - they should all read the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
and complain to the vendors till the feature is implemented.

On the other hand, here in the real world...

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: 25 September 2009 20:48
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"

Jared Smith wrote:

> - Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
> this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
> (except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
> navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
> been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
> 2002).

The argument then of course is: if a sighted user has to rely on keyboard
navigation (or keyboard-like interfaces), then surely they should also be
using the correct tools (browsers) for that. Yes, yes, if they're in a
library, public access area, or the infamous internet cafe', then that may
not be the case (although a follow-up argument then is that the library etc
should provide reasonable accommodation for customers with those
needs...e.g. having something other than, say, IE available)...

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 4:50PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Problem with the headings at the beginning of sections is so many
sites these days are abusing this and I have started to use the skip
links, when provided to get to the content because there are 5 6 and
more headings before I even get to the main content and I dont use
the headings list.


cheers

Geof
At 02:22 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>Conceptually, the idea is that you should layout the content so that
>sections (including sections of the interface) are preceded by headings -
>this includes the navigation, for instance as well as the content. Then
>assistive technology users could do things like pull up the headings list
>to jump to the area they needed.
>
>HTML5 will have some additional elements which, if used properly, could
>enhance this capability, such as the new 'section' and 'nav' elements.
>

Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com

From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 4:55PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

What about head wands and such, do they activate "focus" for skip
links or is it a keyboard action?



At 02:39 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>A few thoughts:
>
>- Section 508 does not directly require "skip" links. It does require
>"a method" of skipping repeated navigation.
>
>- Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
>this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
>(except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
>navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
>been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
>2002).
>
>- Thus, a "skip" link is currently the best way of addressing the
>needs of sighted keyboard users. As such, using the "visible on focus"
>approach (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus) is
>acceptable, so long as the "skip" link is readily visible when it is
>'tabbed' to. An always-visible "skip" link does convey a pretty strong
>statement of commitment to accessibility.
>
>- ARIA landmarks provide a MUCH better solution to all of this because
>they not only provide targets for keyboard navigation, but the areas
>of the page are given descriptive identifiers (search, main,
>navigation, etc.). But again, ARIA landmarks are not yet supported in
>browsers, except with the use of screen readers - so they do not yet
>benefit sighted keyboard users.
>
>In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
>simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
>users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
>duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
>this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
>widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
>accessibility remains "skip" links.
>
>Jared Smith
>WebAIM
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 5:50PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Steve Green wrote:
> How is any user supposed to even know that a user agent exists with the
> facility to use headings for navigation? It's not as if Opera is well known.
> Users just see the text and know nothing of semantic structure, so why would
> they even think that such a means of navigation is possible?

The same way that a user with limited vision knows about screen
magnifiers, or a blind user knows about screen readers, or a user who
only has mobility in their head hears about headwands or sip/puff
switches etc...by getting information from their peers, support and
advice organisations, etc.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 6:35PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

Geof: If the head wand user is accessing the page in a linear fashion by repeatedly invoking a Tab key equivalent, they shouldn't have problems activating the link--unless, of course, for some strange reason it uses an inaccessible event handler, which means keyboard users can't activate it either. If they're able to access links in a non-linear fashion, skip-nav is a non-issue.

--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

From: Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 3:47 PM

What about head wands and such, do they activate "focus" for skip
links or is it a keyboard action?



At 02:39 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>A few thoughts:
>
>- Section 508 does not directly require "skip" links. It does require
>"a method" of skipping repeated navigation.
>
>- Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
>this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
>(except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
>navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
>been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
>2002).
>
>- Thus, a "skip" link is currently the best way of addressing the
>needs of sighted keyboard users. As such, using the "visible on focus"
>approach (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus) is
>acceptable, so long as the "skip" link is readily visible when it is
>'tabbed' to. An always-visible "skip" link does convey a pretty strong
>statement of commitment to accessibility.
>
>- ARIA landmarks provide a MUCH better solution to all of this because
>they not only provide targets for keyboard navigation, but the areas
>of the page are given descriptive identifiers (search, main,
>navigation, etc.). But again, ARIA landmarks are not yet supported in
>browsers, except with the use of screen readers - so they do not yet
>benefit sighted keyboard users.
>
>In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
>simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
>users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
>duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
>this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
>widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
>accessibility remains "skip" links.
>
>Jared Smith
>WebAIM
>

From: Chris Hoffman
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 7:35PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

As a proof of concept (and because it was in my head and needed to be
let out), I wrote a javascript plugin that combines visible-on-focus
skip-nav links with ARIA landmark navigation, and does so even for
users without specialized ARIA-aware assistive technology. There are
definitely things I want to change and tweak with it, but you can see
the demo at http://www.outstandingelephant.com/blog/entry/landmark_navigator.
Load the page and start tabbing to access to landmark navigation.

It uses jQuery UI theming, so the appearance is completely
customizable. Yes, it _does_ require javascript, but I think there are
ways around that. For example, I'm thinking about having the plugin
look for existing skip-nav links on the page and remove them when it
loads, so that they would be there for browsers without JS.

Please feel free to steal it, play with it, change it, use it in
whatever way, and suggestions for changes and improvements are always
welcome.

Chris

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> A few thoughts:
>
> - Section 508 does not directly require "skip" links. It does require
> "a method" of skipping repeated navigation.
>
> - Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
> this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
> (except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
> navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
> been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
> 2002).
>
> - Thus, a "skip" link is currently the best way of addressing the
> needs of sighted keyboard users. As such, using the "visible on focus"
> approach (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus) is
> acceptable, so long as the "skip" link is readily visible when it is
> 'tabbed' to. An always-visible "skip" link does convey a pretty strong
> statement of commitment to accessibility.
>
> - ARIA landmarks provide a MUCH better solution to all of this because
> they not only provide targets for keyboard navigation, but the areas
> of the page are given descriptive identifiers (search, main,
> navigation, etc.). But again, ARIA landmarks are not yet supported in
> browsers, except with the use of screen readers - so they do not yet
> benefit sighted keyboard users.
>
> In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
> simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
> users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
> duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
> this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
> widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
> accessibility remains "skip" links.
>
> Jared Smith
> WebAIM
>

From: deblist@suberic.net
Date: Fri, Sep 25 2009 8:10PM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009, Chris Hoffman wrote:
> Please feel free to steal it, play with it, change it, use it in
> whatever way, and suggestions for changes and improvements are always
> welcome.

Hmm, neat. When I try to navigate with opera, I can make the
navigator appear, but I can't access any of the links via the
keyboard.


-deborah

From: Geof Collis
Date: Sat, Sep 26 2009 7:00AM
Subject: Re: Question on "skip to main content"
← Previous message | No next message

Thanks J

That's good to know, is there any articles/info on how people use head wands?

cheers

Geof




At 08:33 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
>Geof: If the head wand user is accessing the page in a linear
>fashion by repeatedly invoking a Tab key equivalent, they shouldn't
>have problems activating the link--unless, of course, for some
>strange reason it uses an inaccessible event handler, which means
>keyboard users can't activate it either. If they're able to access
>links in a non-linear fashion, skip-nav is a non-issue.
>
>--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>From: Geof Collis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Question on "skip to main content"
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 3:47 PM
>
>What about head wands and such, do they activate "focus" for skip
>links or is it a keyboard action?
>
>
>
>At 02:39 PM 9/25/2009, you wrote:
> >A few thoughts:
> >
> >- Section 508 does not directly require "skip" links. It does require
> >"a method" of skipping repeated navigation.
> >
> >- Heading or document structure could be considered "a method", but
> >this has little benefit for sighted keyboard users because browsers
> >(except Opera or Firefox with an extension) do not support keyboard
> >navigation by headings or other elements (despite the fact this has
> >been a requirement of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines since
> >2002).
> >
> >- Thus, a "skip" link is currently the best way of addressing the
> >needs of sighted keyboard users. As such, using the "visible on focus"
> >approach (http://www.webaim.org/techniques/skipnav/#focus) is
> >acceptable, so long as the "skip" link is readily visible when it is
> >'tabbed' to. An always-visible "skip" link does convey a pretty strong
> >statement of commitment to accessibility.
> >
> >- ARIA landmarks provide a MUCH better solution to all of this because
> >they not only provide targets for keyboard navigation, but the areas
> >of the page are given descriptive identifiers (search, main,
> >navigation, etc.). But again, ARIA landmarks are not yet supported in
> >browsers, except with the use of screen readers - so they do not yet
> >benefit sighted keyboard users.
> >
> >In short, we could kiss "skip" links goodbye forever if there were
> >simply better browser support for keyboard navigation for sighted
> >users (which would naturally remove the need for screen readers to
> >duplicate this functionality). Opera does a splendid job of doing
> >this, and other browsers should follow suit. But until such support is
> >widespread, I'm afraid that the best solution to keyboard
> >accessibility remains "skip" links.
> >
> >Jared Smith
> >WebAIM
> >