I have a sidebar which contains the main navigation for the app. It also contains a button which triggers the open/close of the sidebar. In terms of semantics, how should the markup look like?
Should i wrap the sidebar in aside and then have a nav around only
the main navigation, excluding the open/close trigger.
Or wrap the whole sidebar in a nav including the open/close trigger
Or wrap the sidebar in a section, which contains a nav excluding the
open/close trigger?
Or not have any section or aside, but only have a nav excluding the trigger, in which case am I still following the below best practice. Should the trigger be treated as content? or something that should be part of the outline of the web page?
The [W3][1] suggests:
It is a best practice to include ALL content on the page in landmarks,
so that screen reader users who rely on them to navigate from section
to section do not lose track of content.
The current structure resembles this:
sidebar
main nav
nav item 1
nav item 2
trigger to open/close the sidebar
The <aside> element is used for tangentially related content to main content of the page and are often represented visually as sidebars. Using it for navigation would not be completely confusing to a screen-reader, but you must, in this case, add a role of either complementary or region to it.
I would expect this <aside> to group at least several different <nav> elements, so for your use-case of having a single menu, I would definitely just go with having the sidebar menu area be a <nav>. Remember to give it a nice aria-label by the way. Something like aria-label=“Primary” will suffice for your primary navigation.
Consider hiding the toggle button for screen-readers with aria-hidden=“true”, if toggling does not do them any good. In that case the <nav> must never be hidden with display: none as it would render it invisible and un-toggleable to screen-readers.
<nav aria-label="Primary”>
<button aria-hidden="true">Toggle menu</button>
<ul>
<li>
Link 1
</li>
<li>
Link 2
</li>
</ul>
</nav>
Related
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 example, I have a network nav menu at the top of the page which contains links to sites across the network and my main nav contains navigation to this site. Can both of these nav items be in the same header tag in html5? So I would have something like
<header>
<nav id="nav_network"></nav>
logo and stuff
<nav id="nav_site"></nav>
</header>
Is this valid?
This is fine by the validator:
http://validator.w3.org/check
(As long as you include a head and a title in the doc)
Usually, though, you would place the nav outside the header.
Header is more like the title, logo, and a search form.
A header element is intended to usually contain the section's heading
(an h1–h6 element or an hgroup element), but this is not required. The
header element can also be used to wrap a section's table of contents,
a search form, or any relevant logos.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-header-element
More here: http://html5doctor.com/the-header-element/
There is nothing wrong in using Multiple nav in header, it is perfectly fine.
Yes, you can insert more than one element; that is the answer if you are basically asking about the availability. You can use more than one element, and the browser will read your code perfectly since the element is read as a element in your browser, and there is no difference between them.
But as an SEO wise it is not recommended because the is telling search engines where they can find your navigation menu. So, it is supposed to use only one navigation bar on your website.
Briefly, you can do that, but it is not recommended.
Live Example
HTML5 <menu> element
HTML5:
<menu type="list">
<li> Sign Up </li>
<li> Log In </li>
</menu>
I want to add a signup / login menu to my website.
Would using <menu> be semantic?
Should I use <ul> instead?
Edit: I'm using semantic HTML5. Browser support is irrelevant.
As I'm sure you're aware:
The menu element represents a list of commands.
It really just depends on how you define "list" and "commands." Are "Login" and "Sign up" commands? Or are they list items? Personally I think they're commands. A list (ul or ol) is more akin to something longer, two items just don't seem to make a list, to me. Login and Sign up seem like commands because they're what Stephen Krug, in Don't Make Me Think calls "Utilities":
Utilities are links to important elements of the site that aren't really part of the content hierarchy.
These are contrasted with what he calls "Sections":
links to the main sections of the site: the top level of the site's hierarchy [navigation]
This makes sense semantically: You use <nav> for Krug's "sections" (navigation) and <menu> for utilities or commands (Log in, Sign Up, Search, etc.)
I don't think it's going to matter too much. There are a lot of options you can choose, even the new <nav> tag. But an unordered list certainly isn't going to wreak havoc on your code or not pass HTML5 validation.
I still use unordered lists for my navigations. This includes websites with a top heading nav, sidebar, and footer links. But speaking in semantics, I would recommend the nav element over menu.
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>
I've seen on a couple of sites that they will include a navigation section at the top of their page, with internal links to other parts of the page, so that users with screen readers can quickly jump to the content, menu, footer, etc. This "nav" element is moved off-screen with CSS so regular users don't see it.
What's the best way to implement this? That is, what's the most accessible and least-intrusive for screen-readers? Here is what I've been playing with:
<div id="nav">
Jump to section one
Jump to section two
Jump to section three
</div>
<!-- versus -->
<ul id="nav">
<li>Jump to section one</li>
<li>Jump to section two</li>
<li>Jump to section three</li>
</ul>
The first has the benefit of being much cleaner in its markup, but isn't exactly semantic. Also, it appears like "Jump to section one Jump to section two Jump to section three". I know that the visual appearance isn't important, since it's hidden, but does that affect how it is read out? Are there appropriate pauses between each one?
The second is a bit more verbose in its syntax, but hopefully more descriptive.
Which out of these is better, and is there an even better way?
You can download a plugin for Firefox called Fangs (in reference to the real screen reader Jaws). It will produce text of which Jaws would read. It's very handy. I'd go with a good semantic layout over just the links one after the other. I'd also hide it with... something like
#nav {
position: absolute;
left: 0;
top: -9999px
}
Using display: none may not be read out in some screen readers.
In my own sites, I've generally done this:
<div id="section-nav">
<p>Jump to</p>
<ul>
<li>Section1</li>
</ul>
</div>
Keep in mind that screen readers usually announce hyperlinks as such. Which means that your first example won't be read out as "Jump to section one jump to section two jump to section three" but rather as "Link: Jump to section one, link: Jump to section two, link: Jump to section three" or some such.
(Personally, I would still go with the second, semantic option, but that's just my personal preference.)
You should place the links in an with an id (or class) of #nav. This gives those using screen readers a heads up that the content is a list of links: "This is a list with three items: A link, 'jump to section one, a link 'jump to section two'..."
Placing the "ul" in a "div" with an id of "#nav" is functional, but the div is not doing anything other than wrapping the "ul" for identification. It is cleaner to just id the "ul" and leave the "div" out. The following code is the best (I think). Clean and to the point.
<ul id="nav">
<li>Jump to section one</li>
<li>Jump to section two</li>
<li>Jump to section three</li>
</ul>
To remove the text from the page with css, you use:
ul#nav {
position: absolute;
left: -9999px
}
With a good semantic layout, you don't need it. You can make the navigation elements you're already using compatible with the screen reader. The 2nd option is normally how you make that happen. You can style the list items to match what you're currently doing.
The best way to do what you have requested is to use the <ul> with the anchors inside them.
However there are some bugs in WebKit that will cause the focus to not actually shift to the targeted element, so you will also need to attach an event handler to the links so that the focus shifts. This will also require the target to be tab focus sable (tabindex="-1" will work for this).
However, if you have good heading structure on the page, then the screen reader user can navigate the page without needing this navigational menu you are creating. In fact this menu might be more useful for keyboard only users who do not have a screen reader. In that case, you will want to make it appear on focus so the keyboard-ony user can see it.