Re: Why Skip Navigation Links are a Hack

On 13 Jun, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

>>   have gotten so far with the ideas you mention from HTML 2.0 I am less
>>   than optimistic.
> It's easier to upgrade user agents than get everyone to put visible 
> "skip
> navigation" or "skip to main content" links on their pages.

  That I find unrealistic. Despite your choice of the phrase "you seem to
  think" later on in your reply, it is a fact that some commonly used 
  user-agents today do not in any way or form give users access to the
  information contained in LINK tags.

  The specification isn't unclear on what the LINK is for. That it is
  unclear on how it should be presented is not really important - how it
  should be presented depends on how the user-agent presents data overall,
  and an HTML specification would be seriously strange should it concern
  itself with listing all the various ways that might happen.

  We have, I hope, left the days of 3.2 behind.

  Today, in 2003, we have browsers in common use - even claimed to be THE
  most commonly used browser - which do not support parts of a HTML standard
  from 1995.

  It would be fair to say that an XHTML 2.0 standard could be implemented
  some time in 2010 - if at all. The debate on whether XHTML 2.0 has a future
  belongs elsewhere.

> There's a difference between a set of links designed to take you through
> the document, and one which is designed to take to, well, where you
> appear to be now, which was only inserted for supposed compatibility 
> with
> screenreaders and other linear forms of access.

  Supposed compatibility ? I am, again, lost. I have no difficulty *at all*
  seeing myself using a "Skip the table of contents" or "Skip to the main
  content" link in a graphical browser.

  The 'skip to main content' link is just that - a link that allows a user
  to skip a prefix of some sort, to get to the meat of the document. It
  it is a good accessibility tool in books and on the web.

> We'd be much better off with a robust markup language instead of HTML
> which requires literally telling, in a way that _varies from site to
> site to site_, where the primary content is located and where the 

  No, we're actually *much* better off with a simple, generic, language
  like HTML. If used right.

 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies      
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 21:32:18 UTC