E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 7:57AM
Subject: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
No previous message | Next message →

Hi everyone

Another question, but I think it may be an interesting discussion point for all.
Btw, thanks for great response on AJAX/ARIA, I am just waiting for the
website admin to clear up two minor matters with me before I ask the
relevant questions.
I have been contemplating accessibility and "skip to content" practices.
It used to be that screen reader users (myself included) relied on
these links to get me to the interesting area of the page. As a screen
reader user today I much prefer a sensible heading structure, and I
find myself typically exploring a page using the "n" key or "skip to
next element of different type" in Jaws. I am not sure if that is just
me or if users generally use this method.
However, I have done some reading on it and it is confusing.
On the one hand there is discussion on people who need to use keyboard
simulation and canot navigate through html elements like screen reader
users do. Therefore a "skip to content" link is still necessary for
them. On the other hand a large part of same discuussion focuses on
hiding the link by positioning it off-screen which would indicate that
it is intended for screen reader use specifically, see
http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm
(excellent guide in my humble opinion, but may be a few years out of
date in some respects).

So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
html elements such as headings or landmarks?
Cheers
-B

From: ihenix
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 8:18AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

In an ideal world we'd have browsers implement Spatial Navigation [1]
in the same way that Opera does. This would mean that sighted,
keyboard only users would not need visible (on focus) skip links and
screen reader users could continue to use headings, landmarks, links
etc to navigate. If this were the case we could all go home happy,
devs and users alike. Webkit have nightly builds with Spatial
Navigation in and apparently Firefox has an experimental build (but I
am yet to verify this).

My belief is that the days of Skip Links are numbered [2] however for
sighted keyboard only users they're still relevant and as such Skip
Links have a valid purpose. That said, I've not heard from many
sighted keyboard only users who do use skip links. I wonder if this is
because Skip links are typically invisible or they're all Opera users ;)

Henny

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_navigation
[2] http://www.iheni.com/the-shelf-life-of-a-skip-link/

On 30 Jun 2011, at 14:57, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Another question, but I think it may be an interesting discussion
> point for all.
> Btw, thanks for great response on AJAX/ARIA, I am just waiting for the
> website admin to clear up two minor matters with me before I ask the
> relevant questions.
> I have been contemplating accessibility and "skip to content"
> practices.
> It used to be that screen reader users (myself included) relied on
> these links to get me to the interesting area of the page. As a screen
> reader user today I much prefer a sensible heading structure, and I
> find myself typically exploring a page using the "n" key or "skip to
> next element of different type" in Jaws. I am not sure if that is just
> me or if users generally use this method.
> However, I have done some reading on it and it is confusing.
> On the one hand there is discussion on people who need to use keyboard
> simulation and canot navigate through html elements like screen reader
> users do. Therefore a "skip to content" link is still necessary for
> them. On the other hand a large part of same discuussion focuses on
> hiding the link by positioning it off-screen which would indicate that
> it is intended for screen reader use specifically, see
> http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm
> (excellent guide in my humble opinion, but may be a few years out of
> date in some respects).
>
> So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
> keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
> html elements such as headings or landmarks?
> Cheers
> -B
>

From: YOUNGV5
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 8:39AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

It depends on your user base. If you require backwards compatibility I
would suggest not removing the skip link as older assistive technology can
not interpret modern day mark-up such as ARIA roles. Also, you need to
determine your requirement for compliance; Section 508 1194.22 (o) leads
me to believe that removing the skip link could cause you to be out of
compliance.

I really like what Drupal is doing with their skip link:

http://drupal.org/

I'd be interested to know as well, how useful a visual skip link is and if
Drupal's technique is valid.

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
ihenix < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date:
06/30/2011 10:17 AM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



In an ideal world we'd have browsers implement Spatial Navigation [1]
in the same way that Opera does. This would mean that sighted,
keyboard only users would not need visible (on focus) skip links and
screen reader users could continue to use headings, landmarks, links
etc to navigate. If this were the case we could all go home happy,
devs and users alike. Webkit have nightly builds with Spatial
Navigation in and apparently Firefox has an experimental build (but I
am yet to verify this).

My belief is that the days of Skip Links are numbered [2] however for
sighted keyboard only users they're still relevant and as such Skip
Links have a valid purpose. That said, I've not heard from many
sighted keyboard only users who do use skip links. I wonder if this is
because Skip links are typically invisible or they're all Opera users ;)

Henny

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_navigation
[2] http://www.iheni.com/the-shelf-life-of-a-skip-link/

On 30 Jun 2011, at 14:57, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Another question, but I think it may be an interesting discussion
> point for all.
> Btw, thanks for great response on AJAX/ARIA, I am just waiting for the
> website admin to clear up two minor matters with me before I ask the
> relevant questions.
> I have been contemplating accessibility and "skip to content"
> practices.
> It used to be that screen reader users (myself included) relied on
> these links to get me to the interesting area of the page. As a screen
> reader user today I much prefer a sensible heading structure, and I
> find myself typically exploring a page using the "n" key or "skip to
> next element of different type" in Jaws. I am not sure if that is just
> me or if users generally use this method.
> However, I have done some reading on it and it is confusing.
> On the one hand there is discussion on people who need to use keyboard
> simulation and canot navigate through html elements like screen reader
> users do. Therefore a "skip to content" link is still necessary for
> them. On the other hand a large part of same discuussion focuses on
> hiding the link by positioning it off-screen which would indicate that
> it is intended for screen reader use specifically, see
> http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm
> (excellent guide in my humble opinion, but may be a few years out of
> date in some respects).
>
> So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
> keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
> html elements such as headings or landmarks?
> Cheers
> -B
>

From: Angela French
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 8:45AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

Vincent - are you saying that screen readers actually pronounce "content" differently if the word "main" is in front of it? How interesting.

From: YOUNGV5
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 8:51AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

Another quick note... try to avoid using "Skip to Content" as "Content"
will be pronounced in some assistive technology as the state of being.
Instead, I always use "Skip to Main Content". This seems to take care of
the issue.

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
To:
WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc:
WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Date:
06/30/2011 10:38 AM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



It depends on your user base. If you require backwards compatibility I
would suggest not removing the skip link as older assistive technology can

not interpret modern day mark-up such as ARIA roles. Also, you need to
determine your requirement for compliance; Section 508 1194.22 (o) leads
me to believe that removing the skip link could cause you to be out of
compliance.

I really like what Drupal is doing with their skip link:

http://drupal.org/

I'd be interested to know as well, how useful a visual skip link is and if

Drupal's technique is valid.

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
ihenix < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date:
06/30/2011 10:17 AM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



In an ideal world we'd have browsers implement Spatial Navigation [1]
in the same way that Opera does. This would mean that sighted,
keyboard only users would not need visible (on focus) skip links and
screen reader users could continue to use headings, landmarks, links
etc to navigate. If this were the case we could all go home happy,
devs and users alike. Webkit have nightly builds with Spatial
Navigation in and apparently Firefox has an experimental build (but I
am yet to verify this).

My belief is that the days of Skip Links are numbered [2] however for
sighted keyboard only users they're still relevant and as such Skip
Links have a valid purpose. That said, I've not heard from many
sighted keyboard only users who do use skip links. I wonder if this is
because Skip links are typically invisible or they're all Opera users ;)

Henny

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_navigation
[2] http://www.iheni.com/the-shelf-life-of-a-skip-link/

On 30 Jun 2011, at 14:57, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Another question, but I think it may be an interesting discussion
> point for all.
> Btw, thanks for great response on AJAX/ARIA, I am just waiting for the
> website admin to clear up two minor matters with me before I ask the
> relevant questions.
> I have been contemplating accessibility and "skip to content"
> practices.
> It used to be that screen reader users (myself included) relied on
> these links to get me to the interesting area of the page. As a screen
> reader user today I much prefer a sensible heading structure, and I
> find myself typically exploring a page using the "n" key or "skip to
> next element of different type" in Jaws. I am not sure if that is just
> me or if users generally use this method.
> However, I have done some reading on it and it is confusing.
> On the one hand there is discussion on people who need to use keyboard
> simulation and canot navigate through html elements like screen reader
> users do. Therefore a "skip to content" link is still necessary for
> them. On the other hand a large part of same discuussion focuses on
> hiding the link by positioning it off-screen which would indicate that
> it is intended for screen reader use specifically, see
> http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm
> (excellent guide in my humble opinion, but may be a few years out of
> date in some respects).
>
> So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
> keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
> html elements such as headings or landmarks?
> Cheers
> -B
>

From: Donald Evans
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 8:57AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

Personnally, I like to us CSS to surface a skip link on focus. This is very
easy, needs no JavaScript. And is available to the keyboard only user as
well.

See:
http://websiteaccessibility.donaldevans.com/?p=1020




On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Another question, but I think it may be an interesting discussion point for
> all.
> Btw, thanks for great response on AJAX/ARIA, I am just waiting for the
> website admin to clear up two minor matters with me before I ask the
> relevant questions.
> I have been contemplating accessibility and "skip to content" practices.
> It used to be that screen reader users (myself included) relied on
> these links to get me to the interesting area of the page. As a screen
> reader user today I much prefer a sensible heading structure, and I
> find myself typically exploring a page using the "n" key or "skip to
> next element of different type" in Jaws. I am not sure if that is just
> me or if users generally use this method.
> However, I have done some reading on it and it is confusing.
> On the one hand there is discussion on people who need to use keyboard
> simulation and canot navigate through html elements like screen reader
> users do. Therefore a "skip to content" link is still necessary for
> them. On the other hand a large part of same discuussion focuses on
> hiding the link by positioning it off-screen which would indicate that
> it is intended for screen reader use specifically, see
> http://www.jimthatcher.com/webcourse4.htm
> (excellent guide in my humble opinion, but may be a few years out of
> date in some respects).
>
> So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
> keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
> html elements such as headings or landmarks?
> Cheers
> -B
>

From: YOUNGV5
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 9:03AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

Some, yes. I always use "main" in conjunction with "content".

Vincent Young
User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
Nationwide Corporate Marketing
Nationwide®
o | 614·677·5094
c | 614·607·3400
e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From:
Angela French < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To:
'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date:
06/30/2011 10:48 AM
Subject:
Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
Sent by:
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Vincent - are you saying that screen readers actually pronounce "content"
differently if the word "main" is in front of it? How interesting.

From: Jim Allan
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 9:30AM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

and interesting discussion. Tied into this discussion of should we use
'skip links' should be the question...do they even work?
it depends on your browser and how things are coded and how the
browser is configured. This is appalling. we have been telling authors
for years to create skip links...only to find that unless things are
just right -- they don't work. How frustrating for the developers.
see http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/User_Agent_issues_effecting_A11y#In-page_links_broken
for a small discussion and links to other resources.

there are many such Accessibility issues see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/User_Agent_issues_effecting_A11y
additions welcomed.

Developers should have a base level of expectation that certain things
should function on all browsers.

The User Agent Working Group is collecting these, and using them to
check our guidelines
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110609/).
comments welcome.

Jim Allan, Co-Chair User Agent Working Group




On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:51 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Some, yes.  I always use "main" in conjunction with "content".
>
> Vincent Young
> User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
> Nationwide Corporate Marketing
> Nationwide®
> o | 614·677·5094
> c | 614·607·3400
> e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Angela French < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To:
> 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date:
> 06/30/2011 10:48 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
> Sent by:
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
>
> Vincent  - are you saying that screen readers actually pronounce "content"
> differently if the word "main" is in front of it?  How interesting.
>
>

From: Jeevan Reddy
Date: Thu, Jun 30 2011 11:51PM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | Next message →

Though "Skip" links has good advantages, most of the web sites doesn't have
visible skip links that helps everyone . if you are targetting only screen
reader users for easier navigation, i prefer ARIA landmarks instead skip
links! with ARIA landmarks, the Screen reader user can navigate to different
sections of page rather only to content.
you should consider two scnerios to follow skip links or not. if your
developing web site according to new standards or your web site is
semantically marked with headings, you can avoid invisible skip links. the
worst case, if your web site was developed in older technologies and has no
semantic headings, skip links are useful!

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Jim Allan < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> and interesting discussion. Tied into this discussion of should we use
> 'skip links' should be the question...do they even work?
> it depends on your browser and how things are coded and how the
> browser is configured. This is appalling. we have been telling authors
> for years to create skip links...only to find that unless things are
> just right -- they don't work. How frustrating for the developers.
> see
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/User_Agent_issues_effecting_A11y#In-page_links_broken
> for a small discussion and links to other resources.
>
> there are many such Accessibility issues see
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/work/wiki/User_Agent_issues_effecting_A11y
> additions welcomed.
>
> Developers should have a base level of expectation that certain things
> should function on all browsers.
>
> The User Agent Working Group is collecting these, and using them to
> check our guidelines
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2011/ED-UAAG20-20110609/).
> comments welcome.
>
> Jim Allan, Co-Chair User Agent Working Group
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:51 AM, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Some, yes. I always use "main" in conjunction with "content".
> >
> > Vincent Young
> > User Experience, Web Accessibility Specialist
> > Nationwide Corporate Marketing
> > Nationwide®
> > o | 614·677·5094
> > c | 614·607·3400
> > e | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > Angela French < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To:
> > 'WebAIM Discussion List' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date:
> > 06/30/2011 10:48 AM
> > Subject:
> > Re: [WebAIM] Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
> > Sent by:
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> >
> >
> > Vincent - are you saying that screen readers actually pronounce
> "content"
> > differently if the word "main" is in front of it? How interesting.
> >
> >

From: Ney André de Mello Zunino
Date: Mon, Jul 04 2011 2:21PM
Subject: Re: Skip to content links, what is the current best practice?
← Previous message | No next message

On 30/06/2011 10:57, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:

> So, do you recommend a "skip to content" link for non-screen reader
> keyboard users, or shold it be entirely replaced by sensible us of
> html elements such as headings or landmarks?

From what I have gathered, a solution based on ARIA landmarks[1] is the
way to go. Based on personal experimentation, I have found the use of
ARIA's main landmark role[2] to be both simple and quite effective for
the purpose at hand.

I am not sure though about how long it will take for the "skip to
contents" technique to meet extinction; this is probably connected to
the time it will take for designers and developers to catch up with
ARIA's practices.

To sum up, I'd suggest a solution that employs both techniques, at least
for the time being. The nice thing about ARIA is that it (generally)
won't stand in the way.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#landmark_roles
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#main

Hope that helps.

Regards,

--
Ney André de Mello Zunino
Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento
Softplan/Poligraph
Sistema da Qualidade Certificado ISO9001:2008
Fone/Fax: 0xx(48) 3027-8000
http://www.softplan.com.br/