469,312 Members | 2,503 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,312 developers. It's quick & easy.

Bad? Or not? (But I think I already know...)

Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

I have a feeling it is... My problem is I'm using CSS to style the H3 into a
block that spans the whole containing element. I would like the <a> to
appear next to the title, but I'm sure this is bad practice (for screen
readers and heading-level navigation etc etc)

So... is it acceptable to do this:

<span><h3>Some title or other...</h3><a href="#pagetop">back to
top</a></span>

Or does nesting the <h3> in a <span> do something horrible to the document
structure?

Comments, please! :)

P.


Jul 20 '05 #1
72 4402
"The Plankmeister" <pl******************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@dread11.news.tele.d k...
Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

I have a feeling it is... My problem is I'm using CSS to style the H3 into a block that spans the whole containing element. I would like the <a> to
appear next to the title, but I'm sure this is bad practice (for screen
readers and heading-level navigation etc etc)

So... is it acceptable to do this:

<span><h3>Some title or other...</h3><a href="#pagetop">back to
top</a></span>


I haven't confirmed this in the spec, but I think <h3> is NOT an inline
element, so using span would be incorrect. A better solution might be:

<div class="myheading3">
<h3>Hello World</h3>
<a href="#pagetop" class="toplink">back to top</a>
</div>

Putting the <a> in the <h3> is most likely incorrect semantics.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Peter Foti
Jul 20 '05 #2
The Plankmeister wrote:
Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

I have a feeling it is...
I'd say so, as the 'back to top' text isn't part of the header.

My problem is I'm using CSS to style the H3 into a block that spans the
whole containing element. I would like the <a> to appear next to the
title, but I'm sure this is bad practice (for screen readers and
heading-level navigation etc etc)

So... is it acceptable to do this:

<span><h3>Some title or other...</h3><a href="#pagetop">back to
top</a></span>

Or does nesting the <h3> in a <span> do something horrible to the document
structure?


<span> elements cannot contain block-level elements, so you'd get a
validation error immediately upon opening the <h3> element (with XHTML), or
when you attempt to close the <span> element (with HTML).

In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if you had difficulty styling things
the way you want in some browsers, as the <h3> element wouldn't be within
the <span> element as you intend.

Use a <div> element in place of the <span> element, and you should be fine.
An even better approach would be to pick a more suitable element, but
without knowing the context, I can't suggest one (and there may not even be
one).

--
Jim Dabell

Jul 20 '05 #3
"The Plankmeister" <pl******************@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:3f***********************@dread11.news.tele.d k...
Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

I have a feeling it is... My problem is I'm using CSS to style the H3 into a block that spans the whole containing element. I would like the <a> to
appear next to the title, but I'm sure this is bad practice (for screen
readers and heading-level navigation etc etc)

So... is it acceptable to do this:

<span><h3>Some title or other...</h3><a href="#pagetop">back to
top</a></span>

Or does nesting the <h3> in a <span> do something horrible to the document
structure?

Comments, please! :)

P.


<h3><span>Some title or other...</span></h3>
<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a>

Or is this not what you want?
--
With regards,
Samuël van Laere
the Netherlands
http://samuel.phpindex.nl

Jul 20 '05 #4
Jim Dabell <ji********@jimdabell.com> wrote:
Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

I have a feeling it is...


I'd say so, as the 'back to top' text isn't part of the header.


That's true, structurally (and presentationally it would result in
displaying the link in heading style unless you specifically try to
prevent that).

But the main point, IMHO, is that the "back to top" links are worse
than useless, irrespectively of markup and presentation issues:
- they add nothing to the functionality, since they are just poor
duplication of every browser's built-in function for getting to
the top
- they look real foolish on paper
- they disturb the tabbing order, making it more awkward to move around
links using the tab key
- they pollute the list of links on a page (and this is relevant e.g.
to blind user who navigates using a browser-constructed list of
links on a page)
- they are not unambiguous in meaning (top of _what_? site?)
- they are misleading when the user has followed a link that leads to
some anchor inside the document - going "back" would have different
meaning then
etc.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #5
"The Plankmeister" <pl******************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@dread11.news.tele.d k...
Is doing this bad:

<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>


How about removing the "back to top" altogether? Most user agents support a
way to return to the top of the page with ease.

Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/
Jul 20 '05 #6
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:33:40 GMT, in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Jonathan Snook wrote:
Is doing this bad:
<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>

How about removing the "back to top" altogether? Most user agents support a
way to return to the top of the page with ease.


Yeah, did everyone forgot what the "home" key is for ?

I've never understood theses website with links to places where we can
easily go by ourselves: "back" links with a javascript:history(-1),
"top" links like this one, etc..

(followup to authoring.html, no stylesheets here)
--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++
Pas de violence, c'est les vacances !
Jul 20 '05 #7
Salagir wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:33:40 GMT, in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,
Jonathan Snook wrote:
Is doing this bad:
<h3>Some title or other...<a href="#pagetop">back to top</a></h3>


How about removing the "back to top" altogether? Most user agents support a
way to return to the top of the page with ease.

Yeah, did everyone forgot what the "home" key is for ?

I've never understood theses website with links to places where we can
easily go by ourselves: "back" links with a javascript:history(-1),
"top" links like this one, etc..


Yeah, it's complete nonsense. Some clients can be convinced, but others
simply say "it's more convenient" or "nobody knows how the browser
works". Most of the time it's just THEM who don't know how the browser
works and can't be bothered to learn how to operate their software. Oh well.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #8
Salagir <Sa*****@jeruCITEDELESPACE.org.invalid> exclaimed in <3f***********************@news.free.fr>:
Yeah, did everyone forgot what the "home" key is for ?


You are, in other words, quite convinced that (a) all UAs have such
functionality, (b) the HOME key exist in all circumstances ?

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #9
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Salagir <Sa*****@jeruCITEDELESPACE.org.invalid> exclaimed in
<3f***********************@news.free.fr>:
Yeah, did everyone forgot what the "home" key is for ?


You are, in other words, quite convinced that (a) all UAs have such
functionality,


Is there a ua that does not have the ability to go to the top of a page?

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #10
Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <Zkwjb.572172$cF.246247@rwcrnsc53>:
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Salagir <Sa*****@jeruCITEDELESPACE.org.invalid> exclaimed in
<3f***********************@news.free.fr>:
Yeah, did everyone forgot what the "home" key is for ?


You are, in other words, quite convinced that (a) all UAs have such
functionality,


Is there a ua that does not have the ability to go to the top of a page?


Good question. I can find no such method on my T68i. Can we be certain
that ALL UAs have this function built in ?

Going back, or forward, in the browsing history - yes. Going to the start
of the document ? I don't know. It is difficult to say whether all
UAs in use have that function built in.

So perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the idea; it doesn't really do any
harm to anyone.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #11
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in
<Zkwjb.572172$cF.246247@rwcrnsc53>:
Is there a ua that does not have the ability to go to the top of
a page?
Good question. I can find no such method on my T68i.


Wow. So, you load a page on the mobile phone, read the first few
lines, then scroll down. You get to the bottom. You want to read the
first few lines again, but you can't. The T68i does not permit you
any means to return to the top of the page. Is that actually correct?
That is one piss-poor browser they put in there.
Can we be certain that ALL UAs have this function built in ?


Perhaps all but Ericsson's.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #12
The Plankmeister wrote:
Is doing this bad:

<span><h3>Some title or other...</h3><a href="#pagetop">back to
top</a></span>


"Back to top" links don't make sense in the context of HTML. They are
especially worse inside a heading, but that's just on top. So yes it's
sort of bad, if you care about HTML, accessibility, usability etc.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #13
Tina Holmboe wrote:

Good question. I can find no such method on my T68i. Can we be
certain that ALL UAs have this function built in ?

Going back, or forward, in the browsing history - yes. Going to the
start of the document ? I don't know. It is difficult to say
whether all UAs in use have that function built in.

So perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the idea; it doesn't really do any
harm to anyone.


Neither does "click here" do much harm. But just as "top of page" it's
just plain silly to include it in most circumstances, especially with
varying browser heights. Yucca pointed out some more.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #14
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Philipp Lenssen wrote:
Neither does "click here" do much harm. But just as "top of page" it's
just plain silly to include it in most circumstances,


I perceive them (rightly or wrongly) as indicative of a patronising
attitude by the author. Personally, I don't like that. I like authors
who do me the courtesy of treating me as an equal, even if I rate to
learn something new from them: and I try to apply that approach myself
too. (Not that it always works out successfully, for sure, but that's
the plan.)

Perhaps it's just because I learned the principle of "don't mention
the mechanics"[1], and took it to heart.

The fact that such mechanical crutches can often be misguided in
detail is not the chief problem: they ought not to be there at all,
because there shouldn't be any need for them (if there is, that's a
browser shortcoming, not something which content authors ought to be
expected to remedy).

I say let the content stand on its own feet. I wouldn't want every
mushroom recipe, hillwalking guide, train spotter's photo gallery etc.
etc to turn into an alternative browser-use tutorial.

I suspect we agree on the general principles, even if we differ on
some points of detail, no?

cheers

[1] http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/
Jul 20 '05 #15
Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <a5yjb.572579$cF.246890@rwcrnsc53>:
Good question. I can find no such method on my T68i.


Wow. So, you load a page on the mobile phone, read the first few
lines, then scroll down. You get to the bottom. You want to read the
first few lines again, but you can't. The T68i does not permit you
any means to return to the top of the page. Is that actually correct?


That isn't exactly what I said, no. You can, of course, scroll back
to the top. What I can find no method of doing is "jumping" back to
the top.

That would be nifty. Luckily, many documents include such useful
links; just as they include other means of inter-document navigation
that UAs can't readily know about.

Can we be certain that ALL UAs have this function built in ?


Perhaps all but Ericsson's.


I'd suggest more caution, and less assumptions about what the UA is
capable off. Such a link does no harm.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #16
"Philipp Lenssen" <in**@outer-court.com> exclaimed in <bm************@id-203055.news.uni-berlin.de>:
So perhaps we shouldn't dismiss the idea; it doesn't really do any
harm to anyone.
Neither does "click here" do much harm. But just as "top of page" it's
just plain silly to include it in most circumstances, especially with


"Click here" does do harm - it makes NO sense out of context.

"Return to the beginning of the document", for instance, makes quite
alot of sense out of context, and is useful when listing links in a
document.[*]

I, personally, do not find inter-document links very silly. I must admit
to a certain surprise as to your views there.

varying browser heights. Yucca pointed out some more.


I saw; considered them, and found most to be just plain nonsense. However,
at this point I have no intention of being drawn into yet another debate
with him over his increasingly narrow views.
[*]
Referring, however, to the start of a continous document as "the top"
is not the best choice of words; but that is neither here nor there
when discussing concepts.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #17
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
[snip]
I say let the content stand on its own feet. I wouldn't want every
mushroom recipe, hillwalking guide, train spotter's photo gallery etc.
etc to turn into an alternative browser-use tutorial.

I suspect we agree on the general principles, even if we differ on
some points of detail, no?


I suggest one exception to that principle.

I have a page on each of my sites intended for people using assistive
technology. (It can be found via an invisible link). It attempts to give some
clues about what navigation (and other) aids the site has. (The aids are a bit
limited at the moment).

The point is that, while browsers for sighted people are fairly homogenious in
what they provide, and authors on the whole supply what is needed for those
browsers to work (except for some uses of Flash, pop-ups, and redirections,
etc), that doesn't appear to be the case with assistive technology. For
example, the range of keyboard options with the IBM Home Page Reader is
massive, and some of them will only work on some pages. (Eg. there are keys to
navigate through the hierarchic structure, or through tables, etc).

This is really talking about an extra level of navigation. Not the level that
you were addressing.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #18
In article <Zm*******************@newsb.telia.net>, Tina Holmboe wrote:
"Philipp Lenssen" wrote:
Neither does "click here" do much harm. But just as "top of page" it's
just plain silly to include it in most circumstances, especially with
"Click here" does do harm - it makes NO sense out of context.


Neither does "back to top". Of course you can usually assume document
context in generated link lists, same applies to next one. (Click here
don't work in that context, off course, so it is worse.)
"Return to the beginning of the document", for instance, makes quite
alot of sense out of context, and is useful when listing links in a
document.[*]
Only if it is there only _once_. On the bottom. And if most used reason
to go to top is using navigation menu/ table of contents, wouldn't it be
better to have navigation menu / dublicate of it on bottom? Or have link
to table of contents?

Does it really make sence after each heading? Why not add link to the
bottom of document as well? After all, that is more likely direction to
go, since user has usually seen what is on top, and there might be
conclusion in the end.
I, personally, do not find inter-document links very silly.


I wonder who you think does?
varying browser heights. Yucca pointed out some more.


I saw; considered them, and found most to be just plain nonsense. However,
at this point I have no intention of being drawn into yet another debate
with him over his increasingly narrow views.


I think they were all good. There might be valid arguments for such
links, but that doesn't make all arguments against links invalid. And
especially when arguing by person, it is usually nice to point out how
most of arguments that you say are nonsence. It seems that you have
narrow views also.

[| From Jukka's post]
| they add nothing to the functionality, since they are just poor
| duplication of every browser's built-in function for getting to
| the top

Well, it seems that only 99.9% of browsers have command to go to top
_directly_.

| they look real foolish on paper

They sure do. Of course some CSS may make that go away.

| they disturb the tabbing order, making it more awkward to move around
| links using the tab key

Ever tried to use keyboard for surfing in IE? That is very annoying. And
there is times you need to do that. (And I bet there is more people using
IE and tab key than there is people with Ericsson web-phones.)

| they pollute the list of links on a page (and this is relevant e.g.
| to blind user who navigates using a browser-constructed list of
| links on a page)

Especially when there is 10 such links. One link at bottom is usually not
that big harm, when properly titled.

| they are not unambiguous in meaning (top of _what_? site?)

That was relelevant on that context.

| they are misleading when the user has followed a link that leads to
| some anchor inside the document - going "back" would have different
| meaning then

IMO makes sence. But that was easy to fix by better wording.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #19
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> exclaimed in <MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de>:
"Click here" does do harm - it makes NO sense out of context.
Neither does "back to top". Of course you can usually assume document
context in generated link lists, same applies to next one. (Click here
don't work in that context, off course, so it is worse.)


I do believe I commented that "back to top" is a silly thing to write;
however: the concept of having an inter-document link going from the
end of a document to the beginning is sane, and useful.


I, personally, do not find inter-document links very silly.


I wonder who you think does?


I am beginning to suspect that quite alot of people have odd views of
what makes a good web document, including "Don't include anything that
might, at some point, exist as a built in function of a browser".

I think they were all good. There might be valid arguments for such
links, but that doesn't make all arguments against links invalid. And
Shall we agree to disagree ?

especially when arguing by person, it is usually nice to point out how
most of arguments that you say are nonsence. It seems that you have
narrow views also.
Of course I have a narrow view - it is user-centric, and that has never
been anything but narrow.

But it was not I who referred to his post; and I have no intention of
commenting on a post I did not refer to. I'll be happy to comment on
yours though.

[| From Jukka's post]
| they add nothing to the functionality, since they are just poor
| duplication of every browser's built-in function for getting to
| the top

Well, it seems that only 99.9% of browsers have command to go to top
_directly_.
I'd go so far as to state: we can be reasonably certain that any sane
UA has a method for navigating it's history, but we can NOT be certain
that they have methods for navigating internally in the document.

Hence, within reason, it might be worth NOT getting bogged down in
which browsers can do what, but rather supply links in the document
to various other places in the document if logical.

| they look real foolish on paper

They sure do. Of course some CSS may make that go away.
All links look real foolish on paper, unless (a) the link text is
chosen appropriately, and (b) the printer stylesheet is set to remove
the underlines. There is nothing there that applies to these links
as opposed to other links.


| they disturb the tabbing order, making it more awkward to move around
| links using the tab key

Ever tried to use keyboard for surfing in IE? That is very annoying. And
there is times you need to do that. (And I bet there is more people using
IE and tab key than there is people with Ericsson web-phones.)
I don't use IE, no. However, I use the TAB all the time - and I set
tabindex to make sure of a logical order. It IS possible to exclude that
link, of course, but I see no reason to do so.

| they pollute the list of links on a page (and this is relevant e.g.
| to blind user who navigates using a browser-constructed list of
| links on a page)

Especially when there is 10 such links. One link at bottom is usually not
that big harm, when properly titled.
Of course it should be given a proper link text, if necessary also a
title. As with ALL links, repeating it is rarely a bright idea.

| they are not unambiguous in meaning (top of _what_? site?)

That was relelevant on that context.
"top of the site" is silly; always were. Lets try to stick with the
concept, and not some authors idea of a good link text.

| they are misleading when the user has followed a link that leads to
| some anchor inside the document - going "back" would have different
| meaning then

IMO makes sence. But that was easy to fix by better wording.


See above.

If you follow a link to an anchor inside a document, a link from the
bottom going "To the beginning of the document" still makes sense.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #20
> "Back to top" links don't make sense in the context of HTML. They are
especially worse inside a heading, but that's just on top. So yes it's
sort of bad, if you care about HTML, accessibility, usability etc.


With that in mind... I'll get rid of it. As somebody said... "Use the home
key!"
Jul 20 '05 #21
Tina Holmboe wrote:
I'd suggest more caution, and less assumptions about what the UA
is capable off.


Some assumptions are quite safe: all ua's allow the user to go to the
beginning or the end of a document that is currently loaded, and all
have a back button.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #22
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Barry Pearson wrote:
The point is that, while browsers for sighted people are fairly homogenious in
what they provide,
Actually it doesn't matter whether they are or they aren't. The key
point is that the reader is in a much better position to know - or
find out - how to work their browser than any document author could
be.

While there's nothing wrong with a browser tutorial in an appropriate
place, it's unhelpful to scatter instructions on how to use the
author's favourite browser (like "hit ctrl/D to download" as I've seen
more than just once) around pages that are supposed to be about
something else entirely.
that doesn't appear to be the case with assistive technology.
That's true enough; but to address that problem it is not, IMHO,
useful for document authors who have relatively little detailed
knowledge of assistive technology to intrude with suggestions of their
own - which inevitably are going to be different on each author's
site: rather, they should be looking to find generally-promoted
guidelines which they can follow, so that the framework is there in
the document structure for any assitive technology (tailored to each
user's needs as appropriate) to extract it as needed.
For example, the range of keyboard options with the IBM Home Page
Reader is massive, and some of them will only work on some pages.
(Eg. there are keys to navigate through the hierarchic structure, or
through tables, etc).
Indeed, but there's no place for that kind of detail on pages which
are about something entirely different.

If you believe you have something helpful to say about using the
design of your site, then by all means say it; but I try to keep in
mind at all times that readers spend _most_ of their browsing time on
other sites than mine, and they're not going to welcome some weird and
wonderful idea of my own that only works on my own site. If I'm going
to do anything at all, then it's my job to find out how I can improve
what's available to be used by their various assitive technologies.
This is really talking about an extra level of navigation. Not the level that
you were addressing.


Indeed.

all the best
Jul 20 '05 #23
Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in <hbCjb.573691$cF.246841@rwcrnsc53>:
Tina Holmboe wrote:
I'd suggest more caution, and less assumptions about what the UA
is capable off.


Some assumptions are quite safe: all ua's allow the user to go to the
beginning or the end of a document that is currently loaded, and all


Indeed true. They all allow it - line by line, or possibly page by
page. But, as has been shown, not all allow the user to jump all
the way. That could be an important feature for someone with motor
difficulties, for instance.

Besides: the Back-button is not a good example, as that deals with
functionality in the UA realm (history stack), not in the document
realm (inter-document links).

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #24
In article <sv*******************@newsb.telia.net>, Tina Holmboe wrote:
[| From Jukka's post]
| they add nothing to the functionality, since they are just poor
| duplication of every browser's built-in function for getting to
| the top

Well, it seems that only 99.9% of browsers have command to go to top
_directly_.
I'd go so far as to state: we can be reasonably certain that any sane
UA has a method for navigating it's history, but we can NOT be certain
that they have methods for navigating internally in the document.

Hence, within reason, it might be worth NOT getting bogged down in
which browsers can do what, but rather supply links in the document
to various other places in the document if logical.


Also if it makes moving around page harder on other browsers?
| they disturb the tabbing order, making it more awkward to move around
| links using the tab key

Ever tried to use keyboard for surfing in IE? That is very annoying. And
there is times you need to do that. (And I bet there is more people using
IE and tab key than there is people with Ericsson web-phones.)


I don't use IE, no. However, I use the TAB all the time - and I set
tabindex to make sure of a logical order. It IS possible to exclude that
link, of course, but I see no reason to do so.


Maybe I'm just so used to Opera that I find TAB key for navigating so
stupid in IE. Unfortunately I have to _use_ IE sometimes.
| they pollute the list of links on a page (and this is relevant e.g.
| to blind user who navigates using a browser-constructed list of
| links on a page)

Especially when there is 10 such links. One link at bottom is usually not
that big harm, when properly titled.


Of course it should be given a proper link text, if necessary also a
title. As with ALL links, repeating it is rarely a bright idea.


In OPs case, it was somewhat obvious that link was repeated.
If you follow a link to an anchor inside a document, a link from the
bottom going "To the beginning of the document" still makes sense.


Off course.

And notice that you didn't find most arguments noncence. In fact, you
agreed most of them at some level. Just not the importance of them.

As user I think to top links are annoying, regardless of link text. As
author, I'm not sure.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Jul 20 '05 #25
Lauri Raittila <la***@raittila.cjb.net> exclaimed in <MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de>:
Hence, within reason, it might be worth NOT getting bogged down in
which browsers can do what, but rather supply links in the document
to various other places in the document if logical.
Also if it makes moving around page harder on other browsers?


I'm not entirely certain I follow. How would

<a href="#start">Return to beginning of document</a>

make it more difficult to move around in a document than, for instance:

<a href="#chapter3">Chapter 3: How To Make Things Inaccessible</a>

This does confuse me.

Of course it should be given a proper link text, if necessary also a
title. As with ALL links, repeating it is rarely a bright idea.


In OPs case, it was somewhat obvious that link was repeated.


Well, I would think it quite obvious that I objected to the general
"on principle" dismissal of the "to the beginning" links.

And notice that you didn't find most arguments noncence. In fact, you
agreed most of them at some level. Just not the importance of them.


I'm sorry ? I disagree with all of them, on any level.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #26
"Lauri Raittila" <la***@raittila.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.cis.dfn.de...
Only if it is there only _once_. On the bottom. And if most used reason
to go to top is using navigation menu/ table of contents, wouldn't it be
better to have navigation menu / dublicate of it on bottom? Or have link
to table of contents?


I just wanted to address one specific issue and that is your idea of
duplicating the navigation at the bottom of the page. I would recommend
against this as was recommended to me by someone who uses assistive
technologies (JAWS to be specific). JAWS can allow a user to pull up a list
of links on the site and the repetition makes it harder to find a page. This
is also the reason why the link text should be descriptive and appropriate
out of context.

Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/
Jul 20 '05 #27
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Barry Pearson wrote: [snip]
that doesn't appear to be the case with assistive technology.


That's true enough; but to address that problem it is not, IMHO,
useful for document authors who have relatively little detailed
knowledge of assistive technology to intrude with suggestions of their
own - which inevitably are going to be different on each author's
site: rather, they should be looking to find generally-promoted
guidelines which they can follow, so that the framework is there in
the document structure for any assitive technology (tailored to each
user's needs as appropriate) to extract it as needed.


Yes, but you snipped what I actually do:

<extract>
I have a page on each of my sites intended for people using assistive
technology. (It can be found via an invisible link). It attempts to give some
clues about what navigation (and other) aids the site has. (The aids are a bit
limited at the moment).
</extract>

In other words, I try to describe the features of the pages, not tell the
person how to exploit those features with any particular technology. For
example, if I use "tabindex", that may be useful information, but it is up to
the user to make the final judgement and know what to do about it. I point out
that I don't use pop-ups. I don't attempt to describe how any particular
technology can exploit that (except to say that the standard controls should
always work).

[snip] If you believe you have something helpful to say about using the
design of your site, then by all means say it; but I try to keep in
mind at all times that readers spend _most_ of their browsing time on
other sites than mine, and they're not going to welcome some weird and
wonderful idea of my own that only works on my own site. If I'm going
to do anything at all, then it's my job to find out how I can improve
what's available to be used by their various assitive technologies.

[snip]

Strawman again - who said anything about "weird and wonderful"? I spent time
trying 2 things: actually using one particular product; and trying to identify
the standard principles to be used. The latter was hard indeed. You and others
don't need to point me at standard pages. I've probably read them, along with
pages that contradict them. Should you or shouldn't you use d-links? Invisible
GIFs? Accesskeys, tabindex, etc? It even took me time to come to conclusions
about alt & title text. (It is not the case that someone who wants to develop
an accessible web site can easily find how). Then having done as well as
possible, and so made the site different from the next site that may not have
made the attempt, it is worth saying what has been done. It can always be
ignored! It is a separate page.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #28
ti**@greytower.net (Tina Holmboe) wrote:
I'm not entirely certain I follow. How would

<a href="#start">Return to beginning of document</a>

make it more difficult to move around in a document than, for
instance:

<a href="#chapter3">Chapter 3: How To Make Things
Inaccessible</a>


As I explained earlier,
a) it interferes with other, useful links in tabbing (whereas
ToC links don't - the user can skip them by following the
first one)
b) it pollutes the list of all links on a page (as generated
by a browser) with a useless entry, or even multiple copies
thereof (depending on browser)
It also pollutes the visual presentation of a page by useless links.
And in accessibility, we try to make pages as simple as possible.
There's no such thing as futility only, since any futile elements
on a page distract from the content, and this is especially
important to people with various cognitive disabilities.

And it is also misleading unless the user came from the beginning
of the document. Whenever you feel tempted to begin a link text with a
verb, warning bells should ring. Often it's just the formulation that
needs to be fixed; but sometimes it's just a symptom that indicates
that you're doing the wrong thing, not just doing something the wrong
way.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #29
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Barry Pearson wrote:
that doesn't appear to be the case with assistive technology.
That's true enough; [...]
Yes, but you snipped what I actually do:
If you don't mind me mentioning it, you have a rather difficult way of
dealing with someone who's trying to enter into the general discussion
while basically agreeing with what you say.

I snipped the parts that I didn't specifically want or need to address
because I had no specific argument against them! I did however feel
it worth making a few general points based on my observations of what
authors have been seen to do generally in this regard on their web
pages.
<extract>
I have a page on each of my sites intended for people using assistive
technology. (It can be found via an invisible link). It attempts to give some
clues about what navigation (and other) aids the site has. (The aids are a bit
limited at the moment).
</extract>

In other words, I try to describe the features of the pages, not tell the
person how to exploit those features with any particular technology.
Just the point I was trying to make, indeed. An available, but
relatively unobtrusive, link to a page that anyone interested can
consult if they so choose. But a site that can be used smoothly
anyway, without having to take note of special instructions. Just a
little optional extra might be missed here and there if the reader
hadn't been aware of them, but nothing that significantly damages the
usability of the site. Isn't that your aim? That's what I took it to
be.
If you believe you have something helpful to say about using the
design of your site, then by all means say it;
[...] but I try to keep in
mind at all times that readers spend _most_ of their browsing time on
other sites than mine, and they're not going to welcome some weird and
wonderful idea of my own that only works on my own site. If I'm going
to do anything at all, then it's my job to find out how I can improve
what's available to be used by their various assitive technologies.


Strawman again - who said anything about "weird and wonderful"?


I did. I've seen plenty of them.
You and others don't need to point me at standard pages.


Oh, quite. I was addressing the general issue from my own point of
view - and in relation to observations of what I've encountered on the
web. Thus generally reinforcing the approach that you are taking, I
thought.

cheers
Jul 20 '05 #30
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Barry Pearson wrote:
>> that doesn't appear to be the case with assistive technology.
>
> That's true enough;
[...]
Yes, but you snipped what I actually do:


If you don't mind me mentioning it, you have a rather difficult way of
dealing with someone who's trying to enter into the general discussion
while basically agreeing with what you say.


I don't mind you mentioning it! It allows me to give my reasons.

I've attended vast numbers of meetings where everyone knows what has been
agreed at each point. But their knowledge turns out to be incompatible. The
meetings didn't confirm consensus at each point. The same applies to Usenet.
I've been involved in vast numbers of debates where the discussion diverts
without such confirmation. Then it reappears later, with each side believing
that the consensus before was in their favour. (Or some people simply ducked
when the logic was too much for them).

I've learned to err on the side of assuming that there is no consensus unless
there is good evidence that there is. If I'm wrong, an extra exchange will
confirm consensus. If I'm right, the dialogue so far can be exploited rather
than wasted. And it is amazing how often there actually was never consensus.

If you think of me as that irritating person who asks at the meeting "have we
all agreed X, then?", and keeps everyone in work late when it turns out that
we haven't, I'm pleased, not upset. I'm a consultant, I don't expect people
actually to like me! (If there was already agreement, why would I be hired?)

[snip] Oh, quite. I was addressing the general issue from my own point of
view - and in relation to observations of what I've encountered on the
web. Thus generally reinforcing the approach that you are taking, I
thought.


Yes. We probably agee. So I doubt if you will be hiring me?!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Jul 20 '05 #31
CJM
I dont want to come across as daft here, but I think I am missing something
in this thread...

I've followed the various arguments and I've come to a definate conclusion
that it is more comfortable on the fence! I didnt spot a clear winner.

Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage. Yet from this
thread, I'm expecting to find a key that takes me to the top of the current
page... but I dont. There is of course the Refresh key, but that isn't a
suitable substitute - it would play havoc with some ASP/PHP pages, and some
other pages too.

I'm not sure if I've misunderstood the question or the answers....!

Cheers

Chris

"The Plankmeister" <pl******************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@dread15.news.tele.d k...
"Back to top" links don't make sense in the context of HTML. They are
especially worse inside a heading, but that's just on top. So yes it's
sort of bad, if you care about HTML, accessibility, usability etc.


With that in mind... I'll get rid of it. As somebody said... "Use the home
key!"

Jul 20 '05 #32
CJM wrote:
Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage.


It's not the UA we're talking about, it's a much simpler feature:

The "Home" key on your keyboard.

It works exactly like the "End" key, just the other way round. And
there's also PgUp and PgDown keys to jump one page (more or less) up or
down, respectively.

Amazing, isn't it?
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #33
CJM wrote:

Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The
only Home key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my
homepage. Yet from this thread, I'm expecting to find a key that
takes me to the top of the current page... but I dont.


When I want to be taken to the top of the page in my browser* I press
Strg+Pos1, which I believe translates to Ctrl+Home on US-keyboards.

Just pressing "Pos1" takes me to the beginning of a line. Ctrl + <-
(left-arrow) takes me to the beginning of the last word.

*This shortcut also works in my text-editor, in Word-Documents, in the
current Window I'm typing in, and so on. It's a standardized GUI
feature on my Windows machine. Speficially it works in all applications
regardless of whether there's "To top of page" buttons, which seems
this makes it a shortcut helpful to know about.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #34
"CJM" <cj*****@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage. Yet from this
thread, I'm expecting to find a key that takes me to the top of the current
page... but I dont.


Not a 'Home ' key on the UA interface, but one on the keyboard.

There will be some variation between browsers/operating
systems/keyboards but frequently you will find that:
Home - jumps to top of the page
Page Up - scrolls up one screen
Page Down - scrolls down one screen (as does the space bar)
End - jumps to the bottom of the page

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #35
CJM

"Matthias Gutfeldt" <sa************@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bn************@ID-16734.news.uni-berlin.de...

It's not the UA we're talking about, it's a much simpler feature:

The "Home" key on your keyboard.
Seems it's not the only 'simpler' thing around here.

It works exactly like the "End" key, just the other way round. And
there's also PgUp and PgDown keys to jump one page (more or less) up or
down, respectively.

Amazing, isn't it?


It is. I've seen them there but always wondered what they are for...!

Joking aside... I never use Home/End and I had forgotten about them.

You re-learn something every day...as they say...

Cheers
Jul 20 '05 #36
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> exclaimed in <bn************@id-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>:
CJM wrote:
Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage.


It's not the UA we're talking about, it's a much simpler feature:

The "Home" key on your keyboard.


Why this insistence on making assumptions regarding the physical
methods a person use to access a website ?

With the fact that I'm stepping on toes, again, firmly in mind I'll
suggest this to you:

I am currently browsing the emminent website http://www.css.nu/
using PocketLink for the Palm. I'm on a Tungsten, and so have Bluetooth
connected to our LAN, and from there out through ADSL. It's what you might
call a rather modern setup.

There is a 'Home' function in the UA. It goes to a specific point
in the history-stack; not to the top of the document. There is no
'Home' button on the keyboard.

However, thanks to the authors I have a good choice of "Return to top"
links which I find highly useful. It is making the website more
accessible to me.

According to you I should just press the "Home" button on the keyboard
instead, huh ? Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?

In some applications, the 'Home' button on the keyboard goes to the
start of a line. In some, to the start of the buffer. IF that key
exist[1]. Or isn't programmed to do something else.

If you want to include ways for your visitors to navigate inside a
document, then include a link for them to do so. If you DON'T want to
include that, fine. Don't.


[1]
Or is there a law against using Sun type 3 keyboards all of a sudden ?

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #37
[top-posting fixed; please don't top-post]

CJM wrote:
"The Plankmeister" <pl******************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f***********************@dread15.news.tele.d k...
"Back to top" links don't make sense in the context of HTML.


With that in mind... I'll get rid of it. As somebody said... "Use the home
key!"


one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage.


That's a "home" button. Does your keyboard have a key labeled "home?"
Mine does. Pressing it in either Opera 7 or Mozilla 1.3 causes the
page to jump to the top.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Jul 20 '05 #38
Tina Holmboe wrote:

I am currently browsing the emminent website http://www.css.nu/
using PocketLink for the Palm. I'm on a Tungsten, and so have
Bluetooth connected to our LAN, and from there out through ADSL.
It's what you might call a rather modern setup.

There is a 'Home' function in the UA. It goes to a specific point
in the history-stack; not to the top of the document. There is no
'Home' button on the keyboard.


The browser you describe seems to be both exotic and broken. That's a
bad combination.

HTML authors usually make pages for browsers with a solid interface
supporting the most basic navigation. Plus, they might enhance the page
for the most popular browsers using workarounds. Rarely have I seen
anyone doing workarounds for an exotic browser which doesn't come with
an optimal interface. As seems to be the case here. Especially if the
workaround hurt the more common browsing situations. (I find the "Top
to document" -- right, whatever you may call them -- annyoing, simply
because they clutter the page. The less unnecessary links I need to
skip, the faster I can read what I'm actually interested in... which is
certainly not the navigation.)

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #39
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> exclaimed in
<bn************@id-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>:
CJM wrote:
Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only
Home key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage.
It's not the UA we're talking about, it's a much simpler feature:

The "Home" key on your keyboard.


Why this insistence on making assumptions regarding the physical
methods a person use to access a website ?


I don't see that. In this thread, the Home key has been mentioned several
times, and each time it's been referring to a Home key situated on common
keyboard layouts, one that is commonly used to go to the beginning of a
document.
With the fact that I'm stepping on toes, again, firmly in mind I'll
suggest this to you:

I am currently browsing the emminent website http://www.css.nu/
using PocketLink for the Palm. I'm on a Tungsten, and so have Bluetooth
connected to our LAN, and from there out through ADSL. It's what you
might call a rather modern setup.

There is a 'Home' function in the UA. It goes to a specific point
in the history-stack; not to the top of the document. There is no
'Home' button on the keyboard.

However, thanks to the authors I have a good choice of "Return to top"
links which I find highly useful. It is making the website more
accessible to me.

According to you I should just press the "Home" button on the keyboard
instead, huh ? Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?
In my opinion, your user-agent is deficient. It wouldn't be hard to
implement a "back to top" feature, and it's a common required behaviour as
you demonstrate yourself. Given that the vast majority of user-agents in
use support this feature by themselves, having a special workaround for
your user-agent is exactly that - a special workaround. Given that some
peopel have already expressed the opinion that they get in the way,
including this workaround for a class of users that are quite rare is a
pretty bad idea.

Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way of accessing the
web that it isn't a good example ?

[snip]

I'm sure if Internet Explorer on Windows was deficient in this way, people
would implement the workaround on many more websites; as things stand, only
very popular user-agents can demand this kind of attention.
--
Jim Dabell

Jul 20 '05 #40
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Brian <us*****@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> exclaimed in
<hbCjb.573691$cF.246841@rwcrnsc53>:

[snip]
Some assumptions are quite safe: all ua's allow the user to go to the
beginning or the end of a document that is currently loaded, and all


Indeed true. They all allow it - line by line, or possibly page by
page. But, as has been shown, not all allow the user to jump all
the way. That could be an important feature for someone with motor
difficulties, for instance.


I think that the important point is that if it's a feature that would be
useful across a number of sites, the user-agent is almost certainly going
to provide an implementation, and an implementation that is better than
anything a website author could provide.

If this isn't the case, then a) it's a shortcoming of the user-agent, and b)
it's of such rarity that it isn't worth worrying about (from an author's
point of view).

I feel no need to provide links of this nature as long documents are
commonplace in the web and a user-agent that can't handle them in an
adequate manner is bound to be in an extreme minority. It's no consolation
to the unfortunate users of such user-agents, but they need to take it up
with their vendors, not any particular author.
--
Jim Dabell

Jul 20 '05 #41
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tina Holmboe wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> exclaimed in
<bn************@id-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>:
The "Home" key on your keyboard.
Why this insistence on making assumptions regarding the physical
methods a person use to access a website ?


Seems to me that Matthias was simply giving an explanation for
something that had come up in earlier discussion, about the UA
function in quite a number of browsers (even Lynx) for the keyboard
key which is labelled "Home". If you haven't got one, then the
explanation isn't applicable to you: fine. There are plenty of other
ways that user agents can implement such actions. Might be a stylus
gesture, whatever.
I am currently browsing the emminent website http://www.css.nu/
using PocketLink for the Palm. I'm on a Tungsten, and so have Bluetooth
connected to our LAN, and from there out through ADSL. It's what you might
call a rather modern setup.
My attempt to get some information about it led me to
www.mdevelop.com, which kindly presented with with:

500 Servlet Exception

java.lang.NullPointerException
at _products__jsp._jspService(D:\web_root\mdevelop\pr oducts.jsp:227)
at com.caucho.jsp.JavaPage.service(JavaPage.java:75)
at com.caucho.jsp.Page.subservice(Page.java:506)
[etc. etc.]

I think they have a bit of developing to do themselves :-}
There is a 'Home' function in the UA. It goes to a specific point
in the history-stack; not to the top of the document. There is no
'Home' button on the keyboard.
Seems you're trying to obfuscate the point, or maybe to register some
kind of protest between the now-popular meaning of the term "Home" in
a web context, and the fact that the particular browser under
discussion uses the keyboard's "Home" key to mean "top of document",
as indeed do several other browsers (but you assumably know this
already).
However, thanks to the authors I have a good choice of "Return to top"
You're telling us in a back-handed way that you don't think your
browser has a specific UA for top-of-document. I'd tend to rate that
as a UA shortcoming, rather than anything calling for extra
author-supplied furniture, to be honest.
Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?
I think you're attacking the wrong issue, but then, that's up to you
really, it's a free forum.
If you want to include ways for your visitors to navigate inside a
document, then include a link for them to do so. If you DON'T want to
include that, fine. Don't.


I'll link them to topics where it seems appropriate (irrespective of
where those topics are on the page), because topics are what I write,
and topics are what I'd want to refer them to.

Top (and bottom, and sides) of the page is an artefact of the
rendering; there's no content-related reason I'd want to send them
there - if they want to go there, then that's between them and their
browser. Is the way I interpret it.
Jul 20 '05 #42
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> exclaimed in <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tina Holmboe wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> exclaimed in
<bn************@id-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>:
> The "Home" key on your keyboard.
Why this insistence on making assumptions regarding the physical
methods a person use to access a website ?


Seems to me that Matthias was simply giving an explanation for
something that had come up in earlier discussion, about the UA
function in quite a number of browsers (even Lynx) for the keyboard
key which is labelled "Home". If you haven't got one, then the
See, here is the problem. If you don't have an input method which has
a key labelled "Home", then there is no way you can "press" that key;
even if it is quite possible that the UA has SOME other way of going to the
start of the document.

But: firstly we assume that the UA has a method of navigating to one
particular internal point in the document. We are not talking about
reloading it, but navigating it. This might be a subtle difference,
yet it *is* a difference.

Secondly, we - or rather Matthias did - assume that this abovementioned
method is connected to a very specific, physical, device - a keyboard
with a "Home" key.

If I am running Netscape - which has such an internal navigational
method - on a Sun 3/50, there is no "Home" key with which to activate
the function[1]; and as far as I know there is no other key combination
in Netscape that does the same. I might be mistaken.

But the bottom line is really elsewhere: navigation inside the document
is not an UA task; but a *document* task.

I see clearly that many believe that "Start of document" is a specific,
almost physical, point relating, presumably, to "the first byte of the
file" or something similar.

But "start of document" not might be the first byte in what happens to
be a file. That may be a common *use*, just as it may be common to
call it "top of page".

I consider "start of document" to be a matter of internal navigation
in a document; and something that an author might want to provide for
the reader. It enhances accessibility - to some; like everything else.

There is a 'Home' function in the UA. It goes to a specific point
in the history-stack; not to the top of the document. There is no
'Home' button on the keyboard.


Seems you're trying to obfuscate the point, or maybe to register some
kind of protest between the now-popular meaning of the term "Home" in
a web context, and the fact that the particular browser under


No, I'm not obfuscating. I am pointing out, by example, that there are
different physical realities out there. We shouldn't go around assuming
so much.

It seems to me people are doing too much of that lately.


Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?


I think you're attacking the wrong issue, but then, that's up to you
really, it's a free forum.


The issue I'd like to attack is what seems to me a refocus of accessibility
to mean

"I don't like solution X, subsequently it is bad for accessibility"
I've seen some of the same on the WAI-IG list as well as in "real life";
one of our main "competitors" in Sweden are experts in the technique.

Top (and bottom, and sides) of the page is an artefact of the
rendering; there's no content-related reason I'd want to send them
there - if they want to go there, then that's between them and their
browser. Is the way I interpret it.


And I agree.

But I disagree in that "beginning of document" or "start of document"
is related to the rendering.

This is a little like saying that we're not going to include - as some
do - tabs in binders so that people can more efficiently find the first
chapter, or the introduction, or similar. When they compain, we'll just
tell them that if they can't find it by flipping their thumbs they'll
just need to get new thumbs.

Consider a document which starts with navigation. A link on the top - which
I have been told is bad for accessibility too - gives the user the means
to skip over the navigation (this is GREAT on PDAs and voice browsers) and
get to the main content.

You get halfway through the document, and want to go to the top. You press
"Home" - assuming you have one, the UA has the function, and soforth - and
you end up ... above the navigation. Which isn't where you wanted to go.

Including a link to where the content starts, on the hand, mean that the
user can navigate more easily in a structure the UA doesn't know anything
about.

Using whatever physical means to entice the UA to do whatever it needs
to do to manipulate its viewport to be at a certain point in the stream
of bytes that make up a file has nothing to do with creating in-document
navigational links.

Is the way I see it.

[1]
Unless I have replaced the type 3 keyboard.

--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
ti**@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Jul 20 '05 #43
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tina Holmboe wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> exclaimed in <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>:
Seems to me that Matthias was simply giving an explanation for
something that had come up in earlier discussion, about the UA
function in quite a number of browsers (even Lynx) for the keyboard
key which is labelled "Home". If you haven't got one, then the
[answer isn't addressed to you]
See, here is the problem.
No problem here until you make one...
If you don't have an input method which has
a key labelled "Home", then there is no way you can "press" that key;
Then you're in no need of Matthias's explanation.
even if it is quite possible that the UA has SOME other way of going to the
start of the document.
Right. I didn't think that was in dispute?
But: firstly we assume that the UA has a method of navigating to one
particular internal point in the document. We are not talking about
reloading it, but navigating it. This might be a subtle difference,
yet it *is* a difference.
Why don't you find the right place in the thread to mount your attack?
Matthias was only offering an answer (an appropriate one, as far as I
could see) to a specific question. I don't see any justification for
you to attack him, when your issue is a more general one
Secondly, we - or rather Matthias did - assume that this abovementioned
method is connected to a very specific, physical, device - a keyboard
with a "Home" key.
That was predicated by the question that was asked, and which Matthias
answered.
If I am running Netscape - which has such an internal navigational
method - on a Sun 3/50, there is no "Home" key with which to activate
the function[1]; and as far as I know there is no other key combination
in Netscape that does the same. I might be mistaken.
I suppose there is that possibility, yes... but that wasn't the
question that Matthias was answering, was it?
But the bottom line is really elsewhere: navigation inside the document
is not an UA task; but a *document* task.
If you make that content-oriented, then I've already agreed.
I see clearly that many believe that "Start of document" is a specific,
almost physical, point relating, presumably, to "the first byte of the
file" or something similar.
You can see that? Well...
I consider "start of document" to be a matter of internal navigation
in a document; and something that an author might want to provide for
the reader. It enhances accessibility - to some; like everything else.
That rather depends on what's at the top, doesn't it?
I am pointing out, by example, that there are
different physical realities out there. We shouldn't go around assuming
so much.
I say again, Matthias offered an explanation based on the situation
that was predicated by the questioner. Your attack could be well
founded if you could find the right place to mount it, but I've seen
little justification for your choice of mount point...
It seems to me people are doing too much of that lately.
That may very well be. I look forward to seeing you attack the
appropriate targets.
You get halfway through the document, and want to go to the top. You press
"Home" - assuming you have one, the UA has the function, and soforth - and
you end up ... above the navigation.
Actually my navigation is in the <link...> tags, and at the end.
Which isn't where you wanted to go.
Right, which is why I'd say that content-related links are good,
position-on-page-related links are unhelpful.
[1]
Unless I have replaced the type 3 keyboard.


"mouse gestures", then! :-}
Jul 20 '05 #44
Isn't there some emerging 'standard' that uses a browser's nav bar (any
browser ought to have this)? Eg, Opera has one that works with Slashdot.
Something like <link rel="search"...>, previous, up, home, etc.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:41:23 +0200, The Plankmeister wrote:
With that in mind... I'll get rid of it. As somebody said... "Use the home
key!"


--

..

Jul 20 '05 #45
"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:Bf*******************@newsb.telia.net...
You get halfway through the document, and want to go to the top. You press "Home" - assuming you have one, the UA has the function, and soforth - and you end up ... above the navigation. Which isn't where you wanted to go.


I would think it unusual that a user would want to return to the beginning
of a document. Most "top of page" links send the user to the navigation so
that they can either select another portion of the current document or move
to another document (since the navigation normally appears at the top of the
document).

Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/
Jul 20 '05 #46
Tina Holmboe wrote:
Matthias Gutfeldt <sa************@gmx.net> exclaimed in <bn************@id-16734.news.uni-berlin.de>:

CJM wrote:
Regardless, one thing that puzzles me is the 'Home key' issue. The only Home
key I have on my UA is the one that returns me to my homepage.


It's not the UA we're talking about, it's a much simpler feature:

The "Home" key on your keyboard.

Why this insistence on making assumptions regarding the physical
methods a person use to access a website ?


CJM is using a keyboard. And you're barking up the wrong tree.
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #47
Vigil wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:41:23 +0200, The Plankmeister wrote:
With that in mind... I'll get rid of it. As somebody said... "Use the home
key!"


Isn't there some emerging 'standard' that uses a browser's nav bar (any
browser ought to have this)? Eg, Opera has one that works with Slashdot.
Something like <link rel="search"...>, previous, up, home, etc.


LINK is a very old standard - it was part of HTML2, and some browsers
(e.g. Lynx) have been supporting it for many years. What is 'emerging'
is the more mainstream browsers that support it, and the awareness in
HTML authors for its usefulness.

Sander explains the situation, and the many advantages of LINK, in his
article: <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/WWW/LINK/index.html>

And I have a list of browsers that support LINK:
<http://www.gutfeldt.ch/matthias/translation/LINK/ENaddendum.html>. It's
slightly outdated and doesn't mention e.g. Safari.

(ciwas snipped from x-post since it's not about stylesheets)
Matthias

Jul 20 '05 #48
Tina Holmboe wrote:

But the bottom line is really elsewhere: navigation inside the
document is not an UA task; but a document task.

That would the bottom line of people who:
- Redesign the scroll-bar in documents (redesign, or simply hide it)
- Use Flash to deliver an "optimized" document-navigation interface
- Well yes, and for those who offer "top to document" links... because
those are _usually_ (you seem to be an exception) the same people who
open links in new windows, tell people that scrolling is bad, etc.
- etc.

But "start of document" not might be the first byte in what happens
to be a file. That may be a common use, just as it may be common to
call it "top of page".

Yes. And you know what? Every document has a start*. So it's completely
redundant to point to it. Authors should not include redundant
information.

*And end. And middle. Do you want to point to those too?
I consider "start of document" to be a matter of internal navigation
in a document; and something that an author might want to provide
for the reader. It enhances accessibility - to some; like
everything else.

No. "Everything else" is mostly not an issue where some people tell it
decreases their accessibility because it clutters the page, looks silly
in printing, etc.

_Ideally_, link semantics are working in a way that when you remove the
linking feature, the text flow will stay intact. E.g. if I write:
"The painter Leonardo was doing paintings in the Renaissance..."
-> then I can make links of "Leonardo", "Paintings", and "Renaissance".
But the sentence makes sense without the links as well.

In how far does "Beginning of document" make sense without being a
link? It doesn't.

And to take a linked table-of-content at the beginning of the page
(which has been used as analogy): Yes, it does make sense without being
linked. It's a readable introduction that doesn't need to be clicked on
to offer value.

But I disagree in that "beginning of document" or "start of
document" is related to the rendering.

It's not directly, you're right, but it's mentioning a formal/
structural issue instead of a contentual one. In other words it's
mentioning information inherent in the document transmitted; it's
redundant (even a single "Top" link, even though there's usually dozens
of them once the concept is applied, which shows how broken it is)...
and therefore must be handled by a solid interface.

My bottom-line: let the user interface handle what it can (and most
commonly does, too). And don't clutter the document with "Beginning of
document"-whatever-you-may-call-them links.

Consider a document which starts with navigation. A link on the top
- which I have been told is bad for accessibility too - gives the
user the means to skip over the navigation (this is GREAT on PDAs
and voice browsers) and get to the main content.

You get halfway through the document, and want to go to the top.
You press "Home" - assuming you have one, the UA has the function,
and soforth - and you end up ... above the navigation. Which isn't
where you wanted to go.


Funny. I press my back-key and it takes me exactly to where I want to
be. To the navigation at the top of the document, just to the point
where I scrolled down. That's Internet Explorer, not the most exotic
browser out there. I think you're constructing problems where there are
none to support your argument for a need of "Beginning"-links.
--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com
Jul 20 '05 #49
CJM

"Tina Holmboe" <ti**@greytower.net> wrote in message
news:dG*******************@newsb.telia.net...

According to you I should just press the "Home" button on the keyboard
instead, huh ? Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?


According to me?

Hey, I'm firmly ensconsed on the fence here, Tina...!

Chris
[...sticking his head back below the parapet again]
Jul 20 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

24 posts views Thread by The Plankmeister | last post: by
45 posts views Thread by Steven T. Hatton | last post: by
165 posts views Thread by Dieter | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.