skip to ... content

* Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl>, 2005-06-29 12:17 +0200:

Andre Berger wrote:

* Adrienne <arbpen2003 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>, 2005-06-29 00:04 +0200:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> writing in newsp.ss3imzycm9g4qz-wnt (AT) tbdata (DOT) com:
[...]
a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a
[...]
a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a
[...]
none of the above (because they're not necessary).
[...]
style type="text/css"
.skipnav {
position:absolute;left:-1000px;
}
/style

a href="#content">Skip Navigation</a
.....
div id="content"
h1>Here Am I</h1
/div

For small screen devices, the link shows, and for screen readers, the link
shows. For others, it does not show.

I acknowledge the creative mind behind this solution, but I wouldn't
use it. Remember the mess the Netscape/Internet Explorer 'war'
created when playing with the lacking standard compliance of
browsers? I would prefer style sheets tailored to the media/device
type, and the use of the "hidden" feature.

You do know that some screen readers honour the '"hidden" feature' ?

No. They should I guess.

I don't remember any Netscape/Internet Explorer 'war' btw - I've been
on the web only 3 years now, of which 2 years making web pages. Is it
something that would still play up now when using the
position:absolute method?

Are you talking about a position "inside" the screen or "outside"?

-Andre

Andre Berger wrote:

* Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl>, 2005-06-29 12:17 +0200:
Andre Berger wrote:

* Adrienne <arbpen2003 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net>, 2005-06-29 00:04 +0200:
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> writing in newsp.ss3imzycm9g4qz-wnt (AT) tbdata (DOT) com:
[...]
a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a
[...]
a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a
[...]
none of the above (because they're not necessary).
[...]
style type="text/css"
.skipnav {
position:absolute;left:-1000px;
}
/style

a href="#content">Skip Navigation</a
.....
div id="content"
h1>Here Am I</h1
/div

For small screen devices, the link shows, and for screen readers, the link
shows. For others, it does not show.

I acknowledge the creative mind behind this solution, but I wouldn't
use it. Remember the mess the Netscape/Internet Explorer 'war'
created when playing with the lacking standard compliance of
browsers? I would prefer style sheets tailored to the media/device
type, and the use of the "hidden" feature.

You do know that some screen readers honour the '"hidden" feature' ?

No. They should I guess.

So visibility:hidden or display:none aren't really options to hide
that link.

I don't remember any Netscape/Internet Explorer 'war' btw - I've been
on the web only 3 years now, of which 2 years making web pages. Is it
something that would still play up now when using the
position:absolute method?

Are you talking about a position "inside" the screen or "outside"?

Outside, just like Adrienne described.
It's there in the right place in the source, gets read by
screenreaders and text browsers, but isn't visible in any graphical
browser.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Split Enz - Message To My Girl

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Using an image? And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Why make things harder than they already are?

Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
<thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs

Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.

And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.

Why make things harder than they already are?

Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?

Lemming

--
Jake
(jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk>
wrote:

In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs

Ok, I'd not encountered WT before (was reading in
alt.html.web-accessibility).

Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.

Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.

And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.

Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.

Why make things harder than they already are?

Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?

See above.

Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

Lemming wrote:

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:


In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:


Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs


Ok, I'd not encountered WT before (was reading in
alt.html.web-accessibility).


Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.


Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.

Obviously, the link would be invisible to those people who see images ...

Not to those who read the alt tags ...

mmm ? getting there ?

(accessibilty - clue screen readers)

And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.


Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.


Why make things harder than they already are?


Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?


See above.

Lemming

See above!

Gerry

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Gerry for email use my name at dergal dt com wrote:

Lemming wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:


In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
[snip]
Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.


Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.


Obviously, the link would be invisible to those people who see images ...

Not to those who read the alt tags ...

mmm ? getting there ?

(accessibilty - clue screen readers)

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/imagemaps/bi5.htm

(Yes, I know I should use TITLE instead of ALT for the image-map titles
but that was written before I found documentation on it and ALT worked
for Lynx. I just haven't had the time to update it.)

And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.


Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.


Why make things harder than they already are?


Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?

<sarcasm>

It is really fun[1] to visit a site with Lynx, looking for some
information, and have to page down through ten screens full of the same
menu on *every* page to get to the three-screen contents at the bottom of
each page. Bonus points for irritation are sites that position a "Search"
form or signup form at the exact place in each page so that it becomes the
focus of the cursor during the page-down procedure. "No, no content yet."
[spacebar] "No, no content yet." [spacebar] "No, no content yet."
[spacebar] [spacebar] "WTF? ... Ooops, I'm stuck in a form." [cursor-down]
[cursor-down] [cursor-down] [cursor-down] {to get out of the form}
[spacebar] ...

</sarcasm>

Now imagine a blind person with a screen-reader visiting the same site.

[1] Not.
--
Windows is *not* a "Toy OS". A screenshot of my current desktop:
<http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/MyDeskTop-Jun-22-2005.gif> Want a desktop
like that? (change ".zip" to ".gif" or "-files.gif" to see zip contents):
<http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/EtchASketch.zip>

In message <rv8ge1h9j0h8v24l5uq6l3nhg8e8165t2u (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
<thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:

In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs

Ok, I'd not encountered WT before (was reading in
alt.html.web-accessibility).

Likewise.

Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.

Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.

Some designers don't like a 'skip to [whatever]' link to be visible on
the page (although some designers do so -- makes it easier for keyboard
users) as they feel it spoils their design.

And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.

Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.

I think PDA and mobile/cell-phone users would probably disagree with

you.

Two things to consider:
(a) The first part of the page often contains headings, contact details,
and other things. You need to be able to bypass all of this -- not just
navigation.
(b) If you move the navigation to the back end of the code, then you
need to provide a 'skip to navigation' link ;-)

Why make things harder than they already are?

Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?

See above.

Sorry. Still don't quite see how it makes things 'harder' to have a
'skip to main content' link at the start of each page.

Lemming

regards.
--
Jake
(jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:22:28 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk>
wrote:

In message <rv8ge1h9j0h8v24l5uq6l3nhg8e8165t2u (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:

In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs

Ok, I'd not encountered WT before (was reading in
alt.html.web-accessibility).

Likewise.

Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.

Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.

Some designers don't like a 'skip to [whatever]' link to be visible on
the page (although some designers do so -- makes it easier for keyboard
users) as they feel it spoils their design.


And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.

Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.

I think PDA and mobile/cell-phone users would probably disagree with
you.

Two things to consider:
(a) The first part of the page often contains headings, contact details,
and other things. You need to be able to bypass all of this -- not just
navigation.
(b) If you move the navigation to the back end of the code, then you
need to provide a 'skip to navigation' link ;-)

Exactly. But the blind visitor using a screen reader doesn't have to
skip *anywhere* - s/he's already at the content.

Why make things harder than they already are?

Pardon? Want to explain a bit further?

See above.

Sorry. Still don't quite see how it makes things 'harder' to have a
'skip to main content' link at the start of each page.

Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

In message <irjte1pg6d4sb9h41ri7lmr5cuml0r0r5p (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
<thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:22:28 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:

In message <rv8ge1h9j0h8v24l5uq6l3nhg8e8165t2u (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:50:46 +0100, jake <jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk
wrote:

In message <supgc1dmjgppahtalg51ot450cbagd0id7 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Lemming
thiswillbounce (AT) bumblbee (DOT) demon.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:48:25 +0100, "William Tasso"
SpamBlocked (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote:

Greetings One and All

been pondering skip-to .....

Which is preferable .......

a class="noviz" href="#content">skip to content</a

or

a class="noviz" href="#content"><img src="my-very-small-image.jpg"
alt="skip to content"></a

or

something else

or

none of the above (because they're not necessary).

Surely this has to be a troll ...

Nope. WT is a long-time poster in many HTML-associated NGs

Ok, I'd not encountered WT before (was reading in
alt.html.web-accessibility).

Likewise.

Using an image?

Transparent or single-pixel gif images -- a fairly common way to provide
an invisible link.

Why would you want to make a link invisible? Perhaps I'm missing the
point here.

Some designers don't like a 'skip to [whatever]' link to be visible on
the page (although some designers do so -- makes it easier for keyboard
users) as they feel it spoils their design.


And "Skip to *content* ?"

Surely, skip to *menu*.

Depends on the sequence of the code. If navigation comes first (normal)
then 'skip to main content' is used as the first entry on a page.

Navigation coming first *may* be "normal", but it shouldn't be. most
people visit a page for the content. If you place your navigation
*after* the content then your visitors get what they want faster.
Then you can use CSS to make the nav display wherever you want for the
GUI client, keeping him happy, while also making life MUCH easier for
the blind user using a screen reader.

I think PDA and mobile/cell-phone users would probably disagree with
you.

Two things to consider:
(a) The first part of the page often contains headings, contact details,
and other things. You need to be able to bypass all of this -- not just
navigation.
(b) If you move the navigation to the back end of the code, then you
need to provide a 'skip to navigation' link ;-)

Exactly. But the blind visitor using a screen reader doesn't have to
skip *anywhere* - s/he's already at the content.

Nope. What about the headings, search boxes, contact numbers, etc.?

More importantly .... how do they then get to the navigation?

[snip]

regards.
--
Jake
(jake (AT) gododdin (DOT) demon.co.uk .... just a spam trap.)