- From: Mike Rundle <phark@phark.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 09:18:34 -0400
- To: W3c-Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hey everybody, What I usually do is have this style for my "skip nav link": .skipNav { display: none; } So for browsers that understand CSS, it doesn't show up, but for text- based browsers and those with CSS turned off, it shows up perfectly. Mike On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 07:05:08 -0700, Leslie K. Yoder wrote: > > The fact that skip nav links *are* typically "hidden" seems to cause several > problems: the Google issue; poor usability for sighted keyboard users; and, > probably, lack of widespread implementation because the standard is, > literally, invisible to most users and designers. > > Given these drawbacks of the hidden link, would it make more sense to shift > the convention to visible skip nav? > > Leslie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca> > To: "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:21 AM > Subject: Skip Nav (was RE: "Think EUO, not SEO"/Google) > > >> >> David, >> >> I think that you may be missing something here - providing a means to skip >> over redundant information through a series of documents (web pages) is an >> accessibility aid to some users, not just those employing screen readers, >> but all linear devices, including but not limited to text only user > agents, >> or those with limited display real-estate (cell phones, PDAs, etc.) >> >> Structurally, all HTML documents are linear in composition; they start > <!DOC >> TYPE..> and they end </html>. Within each of these documents however > there >> are blocks of content - the subject (the "good stuff") properly marked up >> using the semantic logic of <h1>, <h2>, <p>, etc., then there is > "supporting >> blocks" - copyright notice, author information, creator branding (aka your >> logo), and a means of navigating throughout the collection of documents > that >> is your web site (your navigation). >> >> Since all of these elements are to a certain extent important parts of > each >> document, content authors are then required to "prioritize" their > placement >> within the document, given that each document is linear. What should come >> first? Navigation or "the subject"? >> >> In the traditional method, navigational elements are visually placed > across >> the top or along the left hand side of a web page. The reasoning for this >> is based in part on known behaviours of the current browsers/user agents > but >> also because, due to varying screen resolutions, etc. the only real >> bankable visual constant is that each page "starts" at x,y axis 0,0. So >> traditionally important redundant information linearly started there. So >> here comes the navigation... each and every time, each and every page. > For >> users of screen readers and other linear user agents, this can be mildly >> annoying to down right frustrating. If each page on your site has a large >> number of navigational links, they must be "encountered" each time, before >> getting to the actual content. Thus a means to skip over this redundant >> content (if the user desires) aids in the accessibility (and thus > usability) >> of the page. >> >> On the other hand... >> >> Assuming 100% compliant adherence to CSS positioning (a stretch, but work >> with it), it could be argued that placing the main content ahead of the >> supporting information (including navigation) in the linear composition of >> the HTML document would make more sense, and then style it to appear "at > the >> top" or "along the left hand side". For the visual user, this fits within >> the traditional model they have come to expect (see Jacob Neilson, Steve >> Krug(1), et al), but for linear users puts the reason for the page front > and >> center (to paraphrase a song title "don't bore us, get to the chorus"). > But >> if the document content is "long", linear users must "read" the entire > page >> BEFORE they can get to the almost equally important navigational elements. >> In this case a "skip TO" navigation link should be the first thing >> encountered on a page, allowing new users to review their navigational >> options without the need to process the entire page content. >> >> In either scenario, the use of named anchors within a document enhances > it's >> accessibility and usability for users of these more linear technologies. >> You state: "I suspect that having pure navigation and pure content pages > is >> best, anyway." How can this be done? How can a content page be >> "independent" of navigational elements and still be part of a collection > of >> multiple documents? Given today's "state-of-the-web"(2) I don't think it >> can, short of the dreaded Frameset, which over time has now proven to be a >> nightmarish scenario for usability/accessibility concerns as well. >> >> This thread posed the question of whether Google would "penalize" web > pages >> that used "hidden" skip nav (skipt-to-nav?) links on a page. While a >> definitive answer does not yet seem to have surfaced, it does cause one to >> pause. Given that the US Section 508 legally mandates this navigational > aid >> for compliancy(3), it occurs to me that there will be literally millions > of >> pages out there that will have "skip navs", not so much because the > content >> creators truly understand the why of it, but rather "just because" they > need >> to do it because it's "the law". At any rate, indexing 'bots, Google or >> otherwise, which start to penalize pages/sites that include this type of >> content will start to exclude useful and relevant web documents from their >> databases. As someone pointed out, Search Engines which do not provide >> their clients with "the best" results will drop from favour/usage, which >> means a hit to the bottom line. So I don't think 'bots will penalize > based >> on hidden skip navs. >> >> That said, it is also worth considering that a "standardized" method of >> signalling this type of named anchor link within web documents would aid > all >> concerned; users, developers, 'bot-masters, etc. Is this something the >> W3C-WAI should take up and champion? Or perhaps Section508.gov, given > that >> this *is* a Section 508 mandate? >> >> -- >> John Foliot foliot@wats.ca >> Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca >> Web Accessibility Testing and Services >> http://www.wats.ca 1.866.932.4878 (North America) >> >> ******************************** >> >> (1) Steve Krug: http://www.stevekrug.com/buythebook.html >> >> (2) Web weenies using cutting edge browsers and familiar with the more >> intricate nuances of HTML development will point to the <link rel="" > href="" >> title="" /> capabilities and their implementation in Opera 7(4) and > current >> Mozilla(5) builds (we use it in a limited way on the www.wats.ca web > site). >> While this capability certainly allows for basic navigational structure, > it >> can also be argued that it does not completely address the full range of >> navigation requirements in sophisticated and extensive web site >> architectures. >> >> (3) "(o) A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive >> navigation links." >> >> (4) In Opera, go "View >> Navigation Bar >> Auto" (or place it where you >> want it) >> >> (5) In Mozilla, go "View >> Show/Hide >> Site Navigation Bar >> Show Only > As >> Needed (or) Show Always" >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On >>> Behalf Of David Woolley >>> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:55 PM >>> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org >>> Subject: Re: "Think EUO, not SEO"/Google >>> >>> >>> >>>> ...Google [is] declaring all hidden links as >>>> bad and automatically checking every page for them...Most >>>> invisible links do fall into the spam category, but not all. If you >>> >>> Unfortunately every marketing department in the world wants to get >>> their sites at the top of search engine results for any even vaguely >>> related search, but only a small proportion care about accessibility. >>> >>> That means that any feature that allows content to be hidden from the >>> majority audience will be used to stuff keywords. >>> >>> Traditionally Google has been relatively immune to keywords stuffing, >>> because it relies on citation counts. I wonder if what they are really >>> trying to block here is invisible cross-citations? >>> >>> However, more generally, I feel unhappy with an environment that needs >>> such links. At the first level, they should maybe be considered closer >>> to the first entry in the short form table of contents in some books, >>> and called "main text" (also consistent with the principle that links > are >>> nouns, whereas "skip navigation" is more in line with the marketing idea >>> that links are verbs). >>> >>> But, why is there navigation to skip? >>> >>> Part of this is a desire to try and lock people into a site. >>> >>> Part of this is limited support of style sheet positioning, >>> forcing visually >>> early material to be early in the document. >>> >>> But part of it is a dissatisfaction with the traditional publications >>> model in which catalogues and narrative books are separate. Even >>> where both >>> are in a traditional book, the navigation (References) are >>> generally at the >>> end, rather than the beginning. >>> >>> I think, to some extent, the problem is with the user agents, in >>> not making >>> it easy to maintain a bookmark in the catalogue whilst reading >>> the main text, >>> and thus forcing the use of framesets and embedded navigation. >>> >>> However, having recently realised something that was too obvious to >>> consider was implemented by NS4, Mozilla and IE, I wonder if the problem >>> is really a failure to educate users in how to use their browsers. >>> The feature is that you can drag a link into another window and have >>> the link open in that window. This means you only have to open a new >>> window once, for the first contents page. You can then drag subsequent >>> content links from the navigation page into the same window. >>> >>> Once you know of this mechanism, I could argue that it is a much cleaner >>> metaphor than the click to open metaphor, although it makes nonsense of >>> the, too common, "click here" link text. >>> >>> This is a pointing device based metaphor. For the blind user or >>> those with >>> limited screen real estate, I suspect that having pure navigation and > pure >>> content pages is best, anyway. For those where control of the pointer > is >>> the problem, it might be desirable to have better keyboard options than >>> always to open in a new window. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 10:19:30 UTC