Page URL
https://specification.website/spec/accessibility/skip-links/
What is wrong
Currently, skip links are set as recommended. Please set that to required. There are several reasons for that:
The first one is UX - From a keyboard navigating and screen reader user’s perspective, that’s a big “this sucks” potentially resulting in a pogo-stick move.
While the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) don't explicitly mandate the phrase "skip link," they do require a mechanism to achieve exactly what a skip link does.
Here is how it breaks down under the official guidelines:
The WCAG Requirement: Success Criterion 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks)
Under WCAG Level A (the bare minimum compliance level), Success Criterion 2.4.1 states:
"A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages."
Because navigation menus, headers, and utility bars appear on almost every page of a website, keyboard-only and screen reader users would have to tab through dozens of identical links on every single page load just to reach the main content. A skip link fulfills this requirement by letting them "skip" straight to the point.
Does it have to be a skip link?
Technically, no. WCAG is technology-agnostic. You can satisfy this requirement in a few different ways:
-
- A Skip to Main Content Link (Most Common & Recommended): A visible (or hidden until focused) link at the very top of the page that moves the keyboard focus directly to the element.
- Proper HTML5 Landmarks: Using native elements like , , , and <footer allows screen reader users to jump directly to sections using screen reader shortcuts.
- Heading Structures: Providing a clear
at the start of the main content allows screen reader users to skip navigation by jumping to the first heading.
The Catch
While landmarks and headings work beautifully for screen reader users, they do not help sighted keyboard-only users (like people with motor disabilities who use a tab key or switch device but can see the screen). Because of this, a visible-on-focus skip link is widely considered the only foolproof way to fully satisfy the "mechanism available" requirement for all users.
Suggested change
Set to required. I will make a PR.
Sources for the change
No response
Page URL
https://specification.website/spec/accessibility/skip-links/
What is wrong
Currently, skip links are set as recommended. Please set that to required. There are several reasons for that:
The first one is UX - From a keyboard navigating and screen reader user’s perspective, that’s a big “this sucks” potentially resulting in a pogo-stick move.
While the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) don't explicitly mandate the phrase "skip link," they do require a mechanism to achieve exactly what a skip link does.
Here is how it breaks down under the official guidelines:
The WCAG Requirement: Success Criterion 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks)
Under WCAG Level A (the bare minimum compliance level), Success Criterion 2.4.1 states:
"A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages."
Because navigation menus, headers, and utility bars appear on almost every page of a website, keyboard-only and screen reader users would have to tab through dozens of identical links on every single page load just to reach the main content. A skip link fulfills this requirement by letting them "skip" straight to the point.
Does it have to be a skip link?
Technically, no. WCAG is technology-agnostic. You can satisfy this requirement in a few different ways:
at the start of the main content allows screen reader users to skip navigation by jumping to the first heading.
The Catch
While landmarks and headings work beautifully for screen reader users, they do not help sighted keyboard-only users (like people with motor disabilities who use a tab key or switch device but can see the screen). Because of this, a visible-on-focus skip link is widely considered the only foolproof way to fully satisfy the "mechanism available" requirement for all users.
Suggested change
Set to required. I will make a PR.
Sources for the change
No response