Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Many (most?) sites aiming for accessibility and standards compliance use unordered lists for their navigation. Does this make the site more accessible or does it just provide useful elements for styling?
I don’t mind them, and I have been using unordered lists in this way. It’s just that, when I remove the styling from a page to try to gauge it’s accessibility, it strikes me that it could just as well could be plain links. Where does this come from?
The best markup for your site’s navigation would the HTML tag(s) that best represent what your navigation is. This is where rubber meets the road for HTML semantics.
Is your navigation a list that doesn’t have any logical ordering? If so then
<UL>would be a good choice. Is your navigation more of a wizard that requires steps or is it perhaps in alphabetical or numerical sequence? If so then<OL>might be a better choice.Rendering your navigation as plain links as you mention does not provide any semantic meaning; it would suggest that your navigation is a sentence to be read. By providing your links in a list, you supply a hint as to how we are to interpret this series of hypertext-linked words.