W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2013

RE: proposal: clarification of nav element

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:49:48 -0000
To: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007201ce02de$80b98440$822c8cc0$@tink.co.uk>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
"the blog post says that to blind users, it is often better if list elements
are not used as navigation link containers."

The blog says that one blind user found list markup unhelpful. The comments
from other blind people suggest otherwise.

"If that is a real issue... since I doubt that authors are going to stop
using lists for navigation."

There is no evidence to suggest this is an issue. I agree that authors are
unlikely to stop using a design pattern that has stood the test of time,
implementation and usability testing.

Making the spec more clear about how this design pattern works in
partnership with nav would just help remove any uncertainty, and judging by
that article there is a fair bit of uncertainty out there right now.


Léonie.
-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no] 
Sent: 04 February 2013 13:18
To: Steve Faulkner
Cc: HTMLWG WG
Subject: Re: proposal: clarification of nav element

Steve,

the blog post says that to blind users, it is often better if list elements
are not used as navigation link containers. If that is a real issue, and
*that* is the message you want to send, then, explaining (in some other part
of the spec) about <ul role="presentation">, seems just as relevant, since I
doubt that authors are going to stop using lists for navigation.

Speaking personally, then for a while I thought that <nav> was a list
container (similar to <ul>, <ol> and <menu>) - I probably somehow mixed it
up with <menu>. But I have never thought that <nav> was "list container
container".

Leif

Steve Faulkner, Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:09:54 +0000:
> BTW
> 
> it may be after discussion that it is decided that no changes to the 
> spec are needed as the spec is clear as it can be.
> 
> regards
> Steve
> 
> On 4 February 2013 11:48, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Judging from comments on a recent blog post [1] there appears to be 
>> some confusion in the developer community about nav element semantics 
>> and what it does as implemented.
>> 
>> I propose that an explanatory note be added to the current definition 
>> text to make it clear that <nav> does not equal a list of navigation 
>> linksand that if a list of link is what is required then use a list.
>> 
>> thoughts?
>> 
>> [1] http://css-tricks.com/navigation-in-lists-to-be-or-not-to-be/
>> 
>> --
>> with regards
>> 
>> Steve Faulkner
>> 
>> 
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 13:50:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 February 2013 13:50:18 GMT