Any advice?

[Karen McAtamney]

I've been writing http://www.villagefabrics.co.uk since the end of December.
It's finally at a stage where I would really appreciate some feedback on the
design/code/accessibility and anything else that looks wrong.

Many thanks,

Karen McAtamney

--
we*******@villagefabrics.co.uk

[SamMan]

"Karen McAtamney" <ka************@members.v21.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40******@news.greennet.net...

some VI people like them, some don't. if the VI person wants/needs that
kind of functionality then they should use a UA that allows sections to
be skipped. of more practical benefit would be to move the menu markup
to the bottom of the html. also dump the accesskeys.
It won't, however, do anyone any harm, and might well prove useful to some
people (more than just those using screen readers - many people using

Lynx find them useful. I am intending to insert a piece of CSS to hide it from
graphical browsers.

What we do at work sometimes... and may work for you, is to create a style
just for the skip link. Make the font size as small as possible (to make the
nav table look "normal"), and with the same color as the bg. This way, it is
invisible to the sited user and screen readers can still pick it up.

--
SamMan
Rip it to reply

[Peter Foti]

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:si********************************@4ax.com...

brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:

in post: <news:5q********************************@4ax.com >
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> said:

>> that would also result in it being hidden from a lot of screen readers.>> makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

> If visibility: hidden; is used, yes.

and display:none

> There are other positioning methods that a screen reader will

ignore.

it depends on the screen reader.

z-index: -9;

that may not work either, or positioning elements off the canvas area.
as i said, it depends on the screen reader

Too clever for their own good, eh?

Actually, I assume not everyone here is aware of it, but in the US the
one of the 16 provisions spelling out accessibility requirements for
government-sponsored web sites says, "A method shall be provided that
permits users to skip repetitive navigation links." So some of us
actually need to do this.

repetitive - Given to or characterized by repetition

Does this imply that all navigation have a method to skip it, or only
navigation that is "repeated" (ie - navigation on a side of the display,
with duplicate links along the bottom of a page)?

Regards,
Peter Foti

[Harlan Messinger]

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:si********************************@4ax.com...

brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:

in post: <news:5q********************************@4ax.com >
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> said:

>>>> that would also result in it being hidden from a lot of screen readers.>>>> makes the whole thing a bit pointless.

>>> If visibility: hidden; is used, yes.

>>and display:none

>>> There are other positioning methods that a screen reader will ignore.
>>it depends on the screen reader.

> z-index: -9;

that may not work either, or positioning elements off the canvas area.
as i said, it depends on the screen reader

Too clever for their own good, eh?

Actually, I assume not everyone here is aware of it, but in the US the
one of the 16 provisions spelling out accessibility requirements for
government-sponsored web sites says, "A method shall be provided that
permits users to skip repetitive navigation links." So some of us
actually need to do this.

repetitive - Given to or characterized by repetition

Does this imply that all navigation have a method to skip it, or only
navigation that is "repeated" (ie - navigation on a side of the display,
with duplicate links along the bottom of a page)?

They mean repeated from page to page, not within one page. In other words,
the stuff the user heard already when he requested the first couple of
pages. I don't interpret this to require exact duplication. It's sufficient
that the user have become aware that in such-and-such location lies the
general links for site navigation--which may change from one section of the
site to another, but at least the user knows where those links are when he
wants them.

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

brucie schrieb:

in post: <news:bv************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de>
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> said:

3. What is this "Skip Navigation Bar" thing??? Doesn't provide any useful
functionality... I would remove it.

On the contrary, it's an accessibility feature for people using aural UAs,
so they can skip the repetitive navigation and jump to the content.

some VI people like them, some don't. if the VI person wants/needs that
kind of functionality then they should use a UA that allows sections to
be skipped.

That might work if the navigation and content are marked up as
"sections" (whatever the UA considers to be "sections").

of more practical benefit would be to move the menu markup
to the bottom of the html. also dump the accesskeys.

It would still be repetitive.

Matthias

[Peter Foti]

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:si********************************@4ax.com...

brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:

>in post: <news:5q********************************@4ax.com >
>Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> said:
>
>>>>> that would also result in it being hidden from a lot of screen readers.

>>>>> makes the whole thing a bit pointless.
>
>>>> If visibility: hidden; is used, yes.
>
>>>and display:none
>
>>>> There are other positioning methods that a screen reader will

ignore.

>
>>>it depends on the screen reader.
>
>> z-index: -9;
>
>that may not work either, or positioning elements off the canvas area. >as i said, it depends on the screen reader

Too clever for their own good, eh?

Actually, I assume not everyone here is aware of it, but in the US the
one of the 16 provisions spelling out accessibility requirements for
government-sponsored web sites says, "A method shall be provided that
permits users to skip repetitive navigation links." So some of us
actually need to do this.

repetitive - Given to or characterized by repetition

Does this imply that all navigation have a method to skip it, or only
navigation that is "repeated" (ie - navigation on a side of the display,
with duplicate links along the bottom of a page)?

They mean repeated from page to page, not within one page. In other words,
the stuff the user heard already when he requested the first couple of
pages. I don't interpret this to require exact duplication. It's

sufficient that the user have become aware that in such-and-such location lies the
general links for site navigation--which may change from one section of the site to another, but at least the user knows where those links are when he
wants them.

I see. I have to say, this sounds like a rather foolish requirement. IMO,
a better solution would be for the UA to provide the user with a method for
"scrolling" forward and backward in the document. Visual browsers already
have this (via the browser scrollbars). Perhaps non-visual UAs should have
something like "skip 10 words" or "skip N words", and "back 10 words" or
"back N words"? That would certainly be more consistent, and prevents the
content from having to "know" about accessiblity (that is, I don't have to
add extra non-content code to my pages).

Regards,
Peter Foti

[Harlan Messinger]

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bv************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Peter Foti" <pe***@Idontwantnostinkingemailfromyou.com> wrote in message

news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message news:si********************************@4ax.com...
> brucie <sh**@bruciesusenetshit.info> wrote:
>
> >in post: <news:5q********************************@4ax.com >
> >Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> said:
> >
> >>>>> that would also result in it being hidden from a lot of screen
readers.
> >>>>> makes the whole thing a bit pointless.
> >
> >>>> If visibility: hidden; is used, yes.
> >
> >>>and display:none
> >
> >>>> There are other positioning methods that a screen reader will
ignore.
> >
> >>>it depends on the screen reader.
> >
> >> z-index: -9;
> >
> >that may not work either, or positioning elements off the canvas area. > >as i said, it depends on the screen reader
>
> Too clever for their own good, eh?
>
> Actually, I assume not everyone here is aware of it, but in the US the > one of the 16 provisions spelling out accessibility requirements for
> government-sponsored web sites says, "A method shall be provided that > permits users to skip repetitive navigation links." So some of us
> actually need to do this.

repetitive - Given to or characterized by repetition

Does this imply that all navigation have a method to skip it, or only
navigation that is "repeated" (ie - navigation on a side of the display, with duplicate links along the bottom of a page)?
They mean repeated from page to page, not within one page. In other

words, the stuff the user heard already when he requested the first couple of
pages. I don't interpret this to require exact duplication. It's

sufficient

that the user have become aware that in such-and-such location lies the
general links for site navigation--which may change from one section of

the

site to another, but at least the user knows where those links are when he wants them.

I see. I have to say, this sounds like a rather foolish requirement.

IMO, a better solution would be for the UA to provide the user with a method for "scrolling" forward and backward in the document. Visual browsers already
have this (via the browser scrollbars). Perhaps non-visual UAs should have something like "skip 10 words" or "skip N words", and "back 10 words" or
"back N words"? That would certainly be more consistent, and prevents the
content from having to "know" about accessiblity (that is, I don't have to
add extra non-content code to my pages).

Unfamiliar as I am with them, I would expect that browsers have shortcuts
for "next sentence", "next paragraph", "next block", etc., and I know they
have them for "next header". But this isn't quite a parallel for visual
scrolling, because a sighted person can scan the page while it's scrolling,
even if he's not reading it. There isn't any equivalent for an aural
browser.

[Brian]

Matthias Gutfeldt wrote:

brucie schrieb:

Harlan Messinger <h.*********@comcast.net> said:

What is this "Skip Navigation Bar" thing??? Doesn't
provide any useful functionality... I would remove it.

of more practical benefit would be to move the menu markup to the
bottom of the html.

It would still be repetitive.

But if it comes at the end, there's nothing to skip over.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/