I want to create a navbar, and want to know what would be the difference between the following lines of code...
<nav>
<ul>
<li></li>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
and...
<header>
<nav>
<ul>
<li></li>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</header>
Would there be any benefits to wrapping my entire navbar inside of the header, or should I just leave it as it is in the first line? I'm confused about this, I see people doing it, but I don't know why. If I want to style my navbar, can't I just style the nav tag? Why does it need to wrapped inside of another block element, when nav already is doing that?
This is related to semantic HTML and page ranking.
It would be completely fine to only use nav but using nav inside of an header is better as its compliant with semantic HTML.
Semantic HTML is necessary because they help a lot in screen readers and semantic HTML also helps in boosting page rank on google.
Here is a good article to read more about this - https://css-tricks.com/why-how-and-when-to-use-semantic-html-and-aria/
<header> is semantic HTML tag. Using semantic HTML tags improves accessibility of the web page, which is important for being use-friendly for screen-readers and indexing bots.
In the context of <header> tag inside <body> tag, it represents banner landmark of the web page. This is usually placed at the top of the page and in most cases you'll have logo and navigation inside.
Related
so i have been using <nav> <ul> <li> <a> for making a navbar but turns out i can use <nav> <a> to make navbar and when i use its already inline so i don't use a lot of CSS. what do you guys think? note: I am self-taught so I don't know which one is right or someone to ask. Thank you, your answer will be appreciated
<nav>
Home
Login
Register
</nav>
<nav>
<ul>
<li>
Home
Login
Register
</li>
</ul>
</nav>
All of them: Use <nav> as a container, then a <ul> list with <li> children, and inside the li elements the actual links (<a>). That's good for accessibility AND SEO.
If you want to display your navigation in a vertically displayed list, I would use the li tag.
If you want horizontal, I'd do it without them.
Ultimately it doesn't matter though. You can override the appearance of just about anything with CSS anyway.
I am trying to write a theme with multi menu at the header, should i use multi nav tag for each of them? Or wrap them all inside a nav tag?
Here is the example codepen.
header-a wrap everything inside nav tag.
header-b wrap menu and the element that between menu inside nav.
header-c wrap menu inside nav by each.
header-d add nav tag inside each bar to wrap everything inside bar.
Which method will be good in this case?
Thank you so much.
I think this is about semantics.
A nav element should wrap items that are part of the same navigation structure.
For example:
<nav id="topNav">
<ul>
<li><a>Home</a>
</li>
<li><a>About</a>
</li>
<li><a>Contact</a>
</li>
</ul>
</nav>
<nav id="sideNav">
<ul>
<li>Products</li>
<ul>
<li><a>Oranges</a>
</li>
<li><a>Apples</a>
</li>
<li><a>Pears</a>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
</nav>
<nav id="socialNav">
<ul>
<li><a>Facebook</a>
</li>
<li><a>Twitter</a>
</li>
<li><a>LinkedIn</a>
</li>
</ul>
</nav>
See this article
The <nav> tag defines a set of navigation links.
Notice that NOT all links of a document should be inside a <nav> element. The <nav> element is intended only for major block of navigation links.
Browsers, such as screen readers for disabled users, can use this element to determine whether to omit the initial rendering of this content.
It does not seem there is an exact answer to this. Rather, the correct answer depends on how you want the semantics of the website to be read.
Try looking at the following sources:
http://html5doctor.com/nav-element/
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14100279/html5-semantics-for-multiple-nav-
elements
http://w3bits.com/css-responsive-nav-menu/
There is information that states that all 4 of your options would be semantically correct. What you need to think about is how you want the navigation to be interpreted: 1) Should it be seen as one main menu? Then you would want header-a; 2) Should the menus be seen as groups of related menus? Then any of header-a, header-b or header-c would work.
I know I have not exactly given you an answer to your question but from what I can work out there is no straight forward answer.
Hope this helps in some way.
In HTML5, I know that <nav> can be used either inside or outside the page's masthead <header> element. For websites having both secondary and main navigation, it seems common to include the secondary navigation as a <nav> element inside the masthead <header> element with the main navigation as a <nav> element outside the masthead <header> element. However, if the website lacks secondary navigation, it appears common to include the main navigation in a <nav> element within the masthead <header> element.
If I follow these examples, my content structure will be based on the inclusion or exclusion of secondary navigation. This introduces a coupling between the content and the style that feels unnecessary and unnatural.
Is there a better way so that I'm not moving the main navigation from inside to outside the masthead <header> element based on the inclusion or exclusion of secondary navigation?
Main and Secondary Navigation Example
<header>
<nav>
<!-- Secondary Navigation inside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<h1>Website Title</h1>
</header>
<nav>
<!-- Main Navigation outside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
OnlineDegrees.org is an example site that follows the above pattern.
Main Only Navigation Example
<header>
<h1>Website Title</h1>
<nav>
<!-- Main Navigation inside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</header>
Keyzo.co.uk is an example site that follows the above pattern.
Excerpts from Introducing HTML5 — Added on 02-Feb-11, 7:38 AM
Introducing HTML5 by Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp has this to say about the subject:
The header can also contain navigation. This can be very useful for site-wide navigation, especially on template-driven sites where the whole of the <header> element could come from a template file.
Of course, it's not required that the <nav> be in the <header>.
If depends largely on whether you believe the site-wide navigation belongs in the site-wide header and also pragmatic considerations about ease of styling.
Based on that last sentence, it appears that Bruce Lawson—author of the chapter those excerpts are from—admits that "pragmatic considerations about ease of styling" yield a coupling between the content and the style.
It's completely up to you. You can either put them in the header or not, as long as the elements within them are internal navigation elements only (i.e. don't link to external sites such as a twitter or facebook account) then it's fine.
They tend to get placed in a header simply because that's where navigation often goes, but it's not set in stone.
You can read more about it at HTML5 Doctor.
I do not like putting the nav in the header. My reasoning is:
Logic
The header contains introductory information about the document. The nav is a menu that links to other documents. To my mind this means that the content of the nav belongs to the site rather than the document. An exception would be if the NAV held forward links.
Accessibility
I like to put menus at the end of the source code rather than the start. I use CSS to send it to the top of a computer screen or leave it at the end for text-speech browsers and small screens. This avoids the need for skip-links.
It's a little unclear whether you're asking for opinions, eg. "it's common to do xxx" or an actual rule, so I'm going to lean in the direction of rules.
The examples you cite seem based upon the examples in the spec for the nav element. Remember that the spec keeps getting tweaked and the rules are sometimes convoluted, so I'd venture many people might tend to just do what's given rather than interpret. You're showing two separate examples with different behavior, so there's only so much you can read into it. Do either of those sites also have the opposing sub/nav situation, and if so how do they handle it?
Most importantly, though, there's nothing in the spec saying either is the way to do it. One of the goals with HTML5 was to be very clear[this for comparison] about semantics, requirements, etc. so the omission is worth noting. As far as I can see, the examples are independent of each other and equally valid within their own context of layout requirements, etc.
Having the nav's source position be conditional is kind of silly(another red flag). Just pick a method and go with it.
#IanDevlin is correct. MDN's rules say the following:
"The HTML Header Element "" defines a page header — typically containing the logo and name of the site and possibly a horizontal menu..."
The word "possibly" there is key. It goes on to say that the header doesn't necessarily need to be a site header. For instance you could include a "header" on a pop-up modal or on other modular parts of the document where there is a header and it would be helpful for a user on a screen reader to know about it.
It terms of the implicit use of NAV you can use it anywhere there is grouped site navigation, although it's usually omitted from the "footer" section for mini-navs / important site links.
Really it comes down to personal / team choice. Decide what you and your team feel is more semantic and more important and the try to be consistent. For me, if the nav is inline with the logo and the main site's "h1" then it makes sense to put it in the "header" but if you have a different design choice then decide on a case by case basis.
Most importantly check out the docs and be sure if you choose to omit or include you understand why you are making that particular decision.
To expand on what #JoshuaMaddox said, in the MDN Learning Area, under the "Introduction to HTML" section, the Document and website structure sub-section says (bold/emphasis is by me):
Header
Usually a big strip across the top with a big heading and/or logo.
This is where the main common information about a website usually
stays from one webpage to another.
Navigation bar
Links to the site's main sections; usually represented by menu
buttons, links, or tabs. Like the header, this content usually remains
consistent from one webpage to another — having an inconsistent
navigation on your website will just lead to confused, frustrated
users. Many web designers consider the navigation bar to be part of
the header rather than a individual component, but that's not a
requirement; in fact some also argue that having the two separate is
better for accessibility, as screen readers can read the two features
better if they are separate.
I think the simpliest way to answer this is to check the MDN Web Docs and other web standards sites.
TL;DR
there is no right or wrong. It depends on what you build.
This is a question that every web developer asks himself at some point. I had asked myself the question several times. To answer this question, I looked at the source code of Stackoverflow. And SO has the nav tag inside the header tag.
Which is absolutely right here, because if you look at the structure of the view of the top bar, it quickly becomes clear that this is the right way to go. Here you can simply work with the flexbox design. Which in turn would only work with a superordinate tag if both tags were not nested. Which would unnecessarily bleach the DOM. like:
<div class="flex">
<header></header>
<nav></nav>
</div>
On the other hand, there are headers that are simply a large image with a logo inside. Or a whole line with the logo. Here it doesn't matter whether the nav tag is above or below the header tag.
Conclusion: The tags only have a semantic meaning and are not a specification for a template structure. You build the template according to your ideas or the expectations of the users.
Both cases are right!
<!-- case 1 -->
<body>
<header></header>
<nav></nav>
<main></main>
</body>
<!-- case 2 -->
<body>
<header>
<nav></nav>
</header>
<main></main>
</body>
For a while now I have been building websites using HTML5 and I love using the new tags it offers. The ability to avoid using div after div is a wonderful thing and it leads to cleaner and easier to read html. Something that has me a bit confused is when it's semantically correct to use a div tag. I understand a div is a collection of semantically marked-up content that may need to be grouped together but i've seen numerous ways of writing HTML5 and how programmers use divs and I'm just not sure what's the right way and wrong way or in other words the ok way and the better way.
For example:
<div id="header">
<header>
<h1>Here is a header!</h1>
</header>
</div>
<header id="header">
<h1>Here is a header!</h1>
</header>
Both are ways to write html but is one more semantically correct then the other? Is it best practice to add a id or class to a header, footer, nav or aside tag and style them, or is that for div tags? Or is it possible i'm just over thinking this? If someone can help put my mind to rest and give me a good understanding, that would be great!
use tags and use Modernizer.js, so you get IE support.
I think a semantic way to write a header would be something like
<header>
<h1>This is the page heading!</h1>
<!-- extra header information -->
<p>A paragraph explaining the page</p>
<!-- navigation can go into the header, but it doesn't have to -->
<nav>
<ul>
<li>Example page</li>
</ul>
</nav>
</header>
The key points are that the header element should not be inside of a div#header element, because that is redundant. The header element also doesn't need an id for the same reason.
In HTML5, I know that <nav> can be used either inside or outside the page's masthead <header> element. For websites having both secondary and main navigation, it seems common to include the secondary navigation as a <nav> element inside the masthead <header> element with the main navigation as a <nav> element outside the masthead <header> element. However, if the website lacks secondary navigation, it appears common to include the main navigation in a <nav> element within the masthead <header> element.
If I follow these examples, my content structure will be based on the inclusion or exclusion of secondary navigation. This introduces a coupling between the content and the style that feels unnecessary and unnatural.
Is there a better way so that I'm not moving the main navigation from inside to outside the masthead <header> element based on the inclusion or exclusion of secondary navigation?
Main and Secondary Navigation Example
<header>
<nav>
<!-- Secondary Navigation inside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<h1>Website Title</h1>
</header>
<nav>
<!-- Main Navigation outside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
OnlineDegrees.org is an example site that follows the above pattern.
Main Only Navigation Example
<header>
<h1>Website Title</h1>
<nav>
<!-- Main Navigation inside <header> -->
<ul>
<li></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</header>
Keyzo.co.uk is an example site that follows the above pattern.
Excerpts from Introducing HTML5 — Added on 02-Feb-11, 7:38 AM
Introducing HTML5 by Bruce Lawson and Remy Sharp has this to say about the subject:
The header can also contain navigation. This can be very useful for site-wide navigation, especially on template-driven sites where the whole of the <header> element could come from a template file.
Of course, it's not required that the <nav> be in the <header>.
If depends largely on whether you believe the site-wide navigation belongs in the site-wide header and also pragmatic considerations about ease of styling.
Based on that last sentence, it appears that Bruce Lawson—author of the chapter those excerpts are from—admits that "pragmatic considerations about ease of styling" yield a coupling between the content and the style.
It's completely up to you. You can either put them in the header or not, as long as the elements within them are internal navigation elements only (i.e. don't link to external sites such as a twitter or facebook account) then it's fine.
They tend to get placed in a header simply because that's where navigation often goes, but it's not set in stone.
You can read more about it at HTML5 Doctor.
I do not like putting the nav in the header. My reasoning is:
Logic
The header contains introductory information about the document. The nav is a menu that links to other documents. To my mind this means that the content of the nav belongs to the site rather than the document. An exception would be if the NAV held forward links.
Accessibility
I like to put menus at the end of the source code rather than the start. I use CSS to send it to the top of a computer screen or leave it at the end for text-speech browsers and small screens. This avoids the need for skip-links.
It's a little unclear whether you're asking for opinions, eg. "it's common to do xxx" or an actual rule, so I'm going to lean in the direction of rules.
The examples you cite seem based upon the examples in the spec for the nav element. Remember that the spec keeps getting tweaked and the rules are sometimes convoluted, so I'd venture many people might tend to just do what's given rather than interpret. You're showing two separate examples with different behavior, so there's only so much you can read into it. Do either of those sites also have the opposing sub/nav situation, and if so how do they handle it?
Most importantly, though, there's nothing in the spec saying either is the way to do it. One of the goals with HTML5 was to be very clear[this for comparison] about semantics, requirements, etc. so the omission is worth noting. As far as I can see, the examples are independent of each other and equally valid within their own context of layout requirements, etc.
Having the nav's source position be conditional is kind of silly(another red flag). Just pick a method and go with it.
#IanDevlin is correct. MDN's rules say the following:
"The HTML Header Element "" defines a page header — typically containing the logo and name of the site and possibly a horizontal menu..."
The word "possibly" there is key. It goes on to say that the header doesn't necessarily need to be a site header. For instance you could include a "header" on a pop-up modal or on other modular parts of the document where there is a header and it would be helpful for a user on a screen reader to know about it.
It terms of the implicit use of NAV you can use it anywhere there is grouped site navigation, although it's usually omitted from the "footer" section for mini-navs / important site links.
Really it comes down to personal / team choice. Decide what you and your team feel is more semantic and more important and the try to be consistent. For me, if the nav is inline with the logo and the main site's "h1" then it makes sense to put it in the "header" but if you have a different design choice then decide on a case by case basis.
Most importantly check out the docs and be sure if you choose to omit or include you understand why you are making that particular decision.
To expand on what #JoshuaMaddox said, in the MDN Learning Area, under the "Introduction to HTML" section, the Document and website structure sub-section says (bold/emphasis is by me):
Header
Usually a big strip across the top with a big heading and/or logo.
This is where the main common information about a website usually
stays from one webpage to another.
Navigation bar
Links to the site's main sections; usually represented by menu
buttons, links, or tabs. Like the header, this content usually remains
consistent from one webpage to another — having an inconsistent
navigation on your website will just lead to confused, frustrated
users. Many web designers consider the navigation bar to be part of
the header rather than a individual component, but that's not a
requirement; in fact some also argue that having the two separate is
better for accessibility, as screen readers can read the two features
better if they are separate.
I think the simpliest way to answer this is to check the MDN Web Docs and other web standards sites.
TL;DR
there is no right or wrong. It depends on what you build.
This is a question that every web developer asks himself at some point. I had asked myself the question several times. To answer this question, I looked at the source code of Stackoverflow. And SO has the nav tag inside the header tag.
Which is absolutely right here, because if you look at the structure of the view of the top bar, it quickly becomes clear that this is the right way to go. Here you can simply work with the flexbox design. Which in turn would only work with a superordinate tag if both tags were not nested. Which would unnecessarily bleach the DOM. like:
<div class="flex">
<header></header>
<nav></nav>
</div>
On the other hand, there are headers that are simply a large image with a logo inside. Or a whole line with the logo. Here it doesn't matter whether the nav tag is above or below the header tag.
Conclusion: The tags only have a semantic meaning and are not a specification for a template structure. You build the template according to your ideas or the expectations of the users.
Both cases are right!
<!-- case 1 -->
<body>
<header></header>
<nav></nav>
<main></main>
</body>
<!-- case 2 -->
<body>
<header>
<nav></nav>
</header>
<main></main>
</body>