RE: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links

Hi Chaals, and group,

So if  I was doing a WCAG 2.0 compliance check to AA, if there were headers and they were sufficient to enable the user to skip repeated navigational elements, would you say it passes 2.4.1.?  Now, what if there are some headings, but they don't really describe the content well (should fail 1.3.1. in that case also), would I be correct in failing 2.4.6.?

The reason I ask all of this, is that some of the automated tools pick up the lack of  skip links as failures of 2.4.6. and others don't, especially if there are semantically structured headings (h1 etc).

Frankly, I think it should be a requirement as we're wanting to make things better for people to get to the content, not more difficult.  However, that probably comes down to usability.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Charles McCathieNevile [chaals@opera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012 3:33 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Kazuhito Kidachi
Subject: Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links

On Wed, 09 May 2012 03:57:24 +0200, Kazuhito Kidachi <kazuhito@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
> <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 02:08, Kazuhito Kidachi wrote:
>> On the other hand, users that DO rely on keyboard-only navigation should
>> also be using tools that make it easier for them to do so.
...
>> I believe the important part is that it's technically/programmatically
>> possible for users to navigate the structure of a page in a sensible and
>> easy manner. Not all browsers/tools/AT will be able to, but as long as
>> there's at least one tool that does support sensible navigation in this
>> fashion, I'd argue that the SC is satisfied. IMHO of course.
>
> Well, do you think web pages with proper headings/landmarks can comply
> with 2.4.1, without providing skip links, because keyboard-only users
> can choose Opera browser (or, Firefox with Heading Navigation
> Greasemonkey User Script)?

Yes, although I suggest today that this is a pretty legalistic
interpretation. It is *still* a good ide to put in skip links :S

Although it might be worth knowing that skip links were introduced as a
hack authors made because screen readers *didn't* permit header-by-header
navigation when WCAG1 was being developed and deployed.

It's not hard to make the script for other browsers, I suspect. I'll see
if I can get Daniel Glazman's script that provides a complete navigation
frame, which would be even better.

cheers

Chaals

--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 08:28:36 UTC