W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Skipping navigation tactics

From: Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20010408012238.17328.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>
To: jim@jimthatcher.com, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Davey Leslie <davey@inx-jp.org>
Cc: Kelly Ford <kelly@kellford.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Sorry about not being clearer with my reference.
Here is an extract from the page

<start extract>
Navigation menu bypass

People who use screen readers are interpret content in
a linear fashion. That is, they read content from left
to right and from top to bottom (when content is
within a table). We provide an invisible link at the
top of each page to bypass the navigation menu,
allowing users instant access to the non repetitive
content of each page. 
<end extract>

I searched the source and couldn't find any code to
skip links, that's all, hence my reference to testing.


   Jim Thatcher  wrote: Hi there,It's easy for web
access related sites or sites that are
specificallydisabilities related like www.acb.org,
where the skip navigation started, tohave visible skip
navigation links. But Commercial sites are not
willing(for good reason) to have such a link clutter
their design, e.g. www.ibm.comand www.cnn.com (also
www.assistivetech.net and www.firstgov.gov). The
linksare there for blind users. There is no reason for
them to be visible. Thereare good reasons for having
them not visible - they don't clutter the viewfor
people who look at the screen. It is "clutter" more
than pixel clutter.It is user interface clutter. "What
does that link do," a sighted userworries.What is the
relevance of the to-2008
Did you think they hadlinks to skip
Message-----From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
[mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]OnBehalf Of Graham
OliverSent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:12 PMTo:
Charles McCathieNevile; Davey LeslieCc: Kelly Ford;
w3c-wai-ig@w3.orgSubject: Re: Skipping navigation
tacticsI am not really in favour of hiding the link,
have alook at this
can't find the skip links in the html, it may bethere
but that's one of the problems, it becomesharder to
test.I like what they do on the HTML Writers Guild
site,putting the skip links on the top right rather
thanthe top left, it's easier to ignore then for
peoplewho don't want/need to use it.Charles
McCathieNevile wrote: Yes. I am a visualuser, but have
problems from time to time withusingamouse. So hiding
things too much is annoying. (On theother hand, things
comeup in the tabbing order, so aslong as there is a
focus that is clearlyvisible I knowI have hit a link
and just need to check the statusbar tofind out what
is going on. I guess that's lesscool if you're
usingmagnification. Anythoughts?chaalsOn Wed, 21 Mar
2001, Davey Lesliewrote:I wonder if hiding the "skip
links" from graphicbrowsers--which I've doneon a
couple of sites with theinvisible gif trick--is really
a good idea.I'mstarting to have second and third
thoughts about it.What about folkswho can't use a
mouse? Isn't the "skiplinks" useful for them?Just
wondering...Davey Leslie--Charles
McCathieNevilehttp://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone:
+61 409 134136W3C Web Accessibility
Initiativehttp://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258
5999Location: 21Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011,
Australia(or W3CINRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93,
06902 SophiaAntipolis Cedex,
You Yahoo!?Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2001 21:22:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:12 UTC