Comments on: Skip links: Chrome, Safari and Added WAI-ARIA

By: Paul Ratcliffe

Paul Ratcliffe — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:09:01 +0000

We like to design using straight (X)HTML and CSS where possible, and only use javascript when it is the only way to achieve something. So, we’ve only enabled the javascript for those browsers where we know that the HTML/CSS approach doesn’t work.

By: Shelagh

Shelagh — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:30:06 +0000

Indeed it does, thank you. I was also wondering why you have enabled the javascript for Opera, Safari and Chrome, instead of for “anything that isn’t IE or Firefox”. Are there situations where the javascript might cause a problem?

By: Paul Ratcliffe

Paul Ratcliffe — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:22:48 +0000

Good point on Opera! Opera has a great set of keyboard shortcuts that effectively make skip links redundant (take a look at http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/nomouse/). Our old approach was to make the skip link invisible to Opera. However, this relied on CSS hacks, which can lead to problems when new versions of browsers are released. This new method makes the skip link visible to all browsers, so I’ve tweaked the javascript on the demo so that should an Opera user want to use the skip link it works for them (provided javascript is enabled).

In general, you are right though - of the current ‘big 5′ browsers (IE,FF,Chrome,Safari,Opera) internal links only work in IE and FF unless you augment it with javascript like we have in our example.

Hope this helps, Shelagh!

By: Shelagh

Shelagh — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:01:41 +0000

Thank you for this post. May I ask a couple of questions please?

Is there any way to use the javascript in Opera also?

I have read many articles that explain how to make skip links work for keyboard users, but none of the methods work for me except in Firefox and IE. I’ve started to think I’m going mad and that internal links work in these browsers for other people! Am I really going mad, or is there genuinely no html/css way to make internal links work outside FF/IE? If that is the case, how come nobody else seems to be aware of the issue?

By: Liam McGee

Liam McGee — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:05:18 +0000

Hi Wayne - I agree that effective use of heading mark-up combined with use of element navigation in e.g. JAWS removes the need for skip links for some screen-reader users.

However, in our experience of testing users with disabilities, many screen reader users simply do not use the full range of facilities that their software places at their disposal. ‘Power users’ have several navigational strategies they will throw at a page, but less confident users do not - I have watched too many users patiently (and impatiently) sit through yet another repetition of a long list of navigation link - and seen too many praise a site to the skies for implementing a skip link - to feel that they are redundant yet. As a skip link adds greatly to the usability for less confident users, and does not detract from usability for power users, we feel that skip links - well implemented - is the best practice.

Note that the technique does not require any WAI-ARIA techniques (we put ARIA roles in for the sake of perfection).

For sighted, non-mouse users, skip links are a real boon, as Paul mentions in the earlier reply.

By: Paul Ratcliffe

Paul Ratcliffe — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:20:46 +0000

There is a great discussion on the need (or not) for skip links on Iheni’s blog at http://www.iheni.com/the-shelf-life-of-a-skip-link/. In short, our feelings here at Communis pretty much match those of Iheni. Skip links provide an extra level of usability for certain user groups – especially keyboard only users without visual impairments who often aren’t using a browser/assistive tech that offers element navigation. As browsers and the web evolve (especially with WAI-ARIA and HTML 5) the skip link will eventually become redundant, but skip links fill a gap in the meantime.

Re: use of the javascript work around. This was born out of a desire to make the skip link work on WebKit browsers (no javascript necessary for the others tested) as it would be frustrating for a WebKit user to see a skip link but not be able to use it. The choice seemed to be either use CSS hacks or javascript to hide the skip link from these users or make it work for them, so we went for making it work!

By: Wayne Dick

Wayne Dick — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:20:35 +0000

A naive question.

Why are skip links necessary? The page can satisfy SC 2.4.1 using headers and other grouping elements. See, How To Meet 2.4.1 in Understanding WCAG 2.0. The second sufficient technique gives 4 alternative ways to meet 2.4.1 and none require skip links.

Why use a JavaScript work-around when there are perfectly fine HTML elements that require no WAI-ARIA for interpretation?

I am really interested in an answer to this because, I’m curious why developers are so committed to skip links when visually impaired users have effective element navigation available? Most users with visual impairments that I know, including myself, prefer element navigation.

By: Liam McGee

Liam McGee — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:32:37 +0000

Note that by allowing a mechanism for meeting WCAG2.0 success criterion 2.4.1 [Bypass Blocks] in Chrome and Safari, it stops WCAG2.0 being impossible to implement for that SC… which is a relief

It does bring up an interesting question - if a browser simply doesn’t support an accessibility feature required in the WCAG 2 guidelines… does this make it impossible to pass? Or does a conformance claim need to reference the browsers for which it is known to conform? Hmmm.