Comments on: Quiz 2.4.2: Now you see me, now you don’t

by: çeviri

Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:38:25 +0000

Joe: What if I don’t want to read several pages of content to get to the “About Us” link? If I were to follow your suggestion(s), I would need a “Skip to Navigation” link instead. That doesn’t solve anything.

by: Gino

Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:56:23 +0000

I would have to go with b or c. Most users do not need the links, and “a” would just clutter the page. If a page doesn’t scroll on forever and if the navigation is well-planned, “a” would not be necessary.

by: Bart Simons

Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:21:09 +0000

I don’t like a: Dotjay is right (cf. 39).
I’d prefer b.
I am not in favour of c: it should not be left to the designer to create multiple stylesheets with varying accessiblity features. If he would do so, how is he going to explain the differences among them? Will the user understand (a) that he has a choice, (b) what are his options and (c) which options fits best
I personally use D: content first and an 1×1 transparent image entitled “skip text and move to main navigation”. The skip link has the first tabindex and the link tot he homepage has the second tabindex. No more tabindexes are available.

by: Mike Stenhouse

Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:59:13 +0000

I’d vote thoeretically for A but practically for B. We all want to do the best job we can for accessibility users but the vast majority of visitors to the vast majority of sites will be completely unaware that some people need the sort of help that skip links provide. Those folk will be confused and maybe even disoriented by the presence and function of this mystery link. I think it’s best to provide the link for ‘those in the know’ but keep the extras to a minimum for those who don’t. B allows you to offer extra functionality to those at the extremes (with screenreaders for example) who really need it and people savvy enough to spot it, but keeps things clean. That said, if you can integrate skip links nicely into the design, then great.

Incidentally, I’d be interested to know what wording people favour for skip links. I favour the positive ’skip to’ structure… Future quiz Bob?

by: vdebolt

Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:27:03 +0000

The best way to be sure that it will work for those who need it is A.

by: Bob Easton

Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:25:13 +0000

Mike says:

… Another way to solve to is to make a visible jump link pulldown I suppose. …

Oh boy, we’re going to have fun when we get to the quiz about making pulldowns accessible. In a couple of weeks.

by: Mike Cherim

Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:26:38 +0000

I’d have to go with D, though the switcher seems like a good idea. On a site I’m building right now I have a visible skip navigation link top and left, first link, but from that point I incorporated tab indexes next to each headline. Seems like a decent way to hop around the page by-passing blocks of whatever. Another way to solve to is to make a visible jump link pulldown I suppose.

Regarding visibility, I say make it visible if the feature is useful to someone. The skip nav on my portfolio site doesn’t do much on a 1024×768 res monitor, but it does on an 800×600 or with styles turned off. Thus it’s visible. On that site I forewent that checklist requirement on every link block or link list as I felt it would overly clutter the site.

by: dotjay

Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:01:15 +0000

I just wanted to add a comment about keeping “skip links” visible at all times - my apologies if something similar has already been commented. Personally, I tend to use the “appear on focus” method.

Other times, when I have tried incorporating a visible link into a design, users have come back they don’t “get” it. OK, again, it’s down to education, but some people are still confused by it. Some of these users are Web-savvy too - one of which has come back saying that the navigation was broken. This was based on the fact that they expected to be taken somewhere by the skip link - they didn’t expect such an internal page link.

As far as I see it, if skip links are going to be visible, some sort of standard symbolisation would be the best way to go, with a link to an explanation for such additional meta navigation. However, then you’re getting even more visual elements to work into each page.

by: Bruce Lawson

Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:31:59 +0000

I’m with Joe Clark on content-first. In a job I’m on, I can’t change the code order, so I’m fighting for a small icon that is a visible skiplinks. (My next door neighbour has terrible arthritis and hates having to tab-tab-tab-tab-tab to content, but she isn’t visually impaired and would miss an invisible skiplinks link).

Charles Belov said, “Some versions or modes of JAWS ignore 1×1 transparent gifs. “. Can you be more specific, Charles? Hard facts will help me win the visible/ invisible battle

by: redux

Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:46:02 +0000

so, again, the chicken and egg problem: while browser manufacturers don’t follow UAAG, it’s once again up to us to shoulder the burden via WCAG…*sigh*