I don't think I've ever seen a 'Skip' option that I *haven't* clicked on. Almost aways I think they are an admission that "we'd like to make you see XYZ first, but here's a get-out option to bypass our enforced messaging".

Whilst I can think of many reasons why you wouldn't want to use 'Skip' links (SEO, reduced conversion rates etc.), I'm struggling to think of a reason why you *would* want to use it unless it is genuinely useful to the user. 

Ashley Friedlein
CEO, E-consultancy.com

In response to Rosie, Andrew and Ashley.

There is a valid reason to use a ‘skip to xx’ option but it’s not relevant to every user all of the time. This isn’t an accessibility requirement; it’s actually a usability feature for people who use screen readers.

I don’t think this option is specifically for users who may otherwise be confused by the navigation. Surely you should address ‘navigation issues’ as a matter of course.

On our own site we call it skip to main ‘content’. Visit www.segala.com and press ctrl + a simultaneously, this will highlight everything on the page. You will see a hidden link called ‘skip to main content’ on the top of the page. This is invisible to most but ‘visible’ to people who use screen readers.

This ‘option’ enables screen reader users to skip to the main ‘body/copy’ of the page without the need to wade through all the hyperlinks or navigation menus. Some users may want only the main ‘copy’ on the page, especially if they’re familiar with the page/site and know that they don’t wish to tab through the entire site.

Some people will think this is pretty silly or an irrelevant option but hey, it doesn't matter; you don’t have to use it and it’s easy to implement. It’s there for people who do want to use it.

I’m not sure why you would skip *to* the navigation if you’re offered an option to skip to main content - what are you bypassing if you're skipping to the navigation?  However, that’s not to say that x% of users in Zimbabwe don’t want to do this. It’s impossible to please/support/include everyone all of the time. Personally, I don’t think this particular method of implementation is correct.

There is a method to highlight hyperlinks that are in focus for users who prefer to tab – again if you go to www.segala.com and use the tab key, you will notice a green line under each hyperlink in focus. Copy the code if you want to use it, our reference material hasn’t been uploaded yet.

The natural/logical flow of tabbing is usually sufficient. However, you may wish to implement a tab index for sites where the navigation changes regularly. A tab index file allows the developer to force the tabbing order. 

Kind regards,
Paul
-------
Segala - Providing a Reliable, Consistent and Trusted Experience
www.segala.com
-------
Gold Sponsor of Internet World 2006 - www.internetworld.co.uk
Bronze Sponsor of WWW2006 Conference - www.www2006.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 15:53:58 26 April 2006 RosieSherry wrote:

I'm hoping to spark up a bit of debate...

The nature of being a tester is to continuously ask questions. And this is what I do.

My most recent bother is regarding 'skip to' links and the inconsistencies across the web.

What are the current guidelines for using 'skip to' links?

There are variations at the moment:
Skip to navigation
Skip navigation
Skip content
Skip to content
etc

There are also variations on the order of content. Some displaying content first, others choosing to go with navigation first. Pages with navigation first, would have a link to content, and vice versa.

I understand all this, no problem. It has logic behind it, but how effective is it all? Logic does not always work in practice.

What I struggle with at the moment is that each website varies on order of content and types of links used. Surely this must get confusing to the users, and I'm talking about all users not just disabled people.

I honestly believe that most users expect navigation to be first, followed by content. Though am sure others prefer to see content first. This article on skip to links backs up my beliefs.

So, what bugs me is the fact that I use the tab key at times to navigate around pages, (maybe it's out of habit from doing so much accessibility testing) and often when I navigate a site I just get lost and confused.

The intention of web accessibility is to make the internet more accessible to all. I do believe in using skip to links, but not in a way that will make a site less usable.

Rosie Sherry
QA Consultant
www.drivenqa.com
http://rosiesherry.blogspot.com/

I would definitely agree that skip to links are an accessibility issue, and that it should be reminded that it's not only screen reader users who benefit from skip to links.  Any user that does not or cannot use a mouse comes under the category who would benefit from the implementation of skip to links.

The main points that I struggle with are:

• the use of CSS to place content first (so that a 'skip to navigation' is used) and having navigation located at 'the end'.  This can break the flow of navigation.
  
• the lack of visibility of most links.  Users who use skip to links without screenreaders can easily get confused or lost through navigation.
• 'Skip to' links are gaining a reputation of being similar to 'click here' links.  Does it not make sense to have 'Skip to lead story', 'Skip to Our Services', etc, not only is this more clear to the user, but also good for SEO.