Yesterday, I talked about headings as a way for screen reader users especially to understand and jump to specific sections of a page's content.
While not used as much as headings and landmarks for navigation, "skip links" still are a useful tool for many keyboard and assistive-technology users. A substantial minority of screen reader users actively rely on them. While not every user with a disability uses skip links when they are available, they are still an important part of meeting accessibility guidelines and reducing effort for those who do.
However, only about 24% of the websites scanned by the Web Almanac implemented skip links in a way that could be detected. That means three-quarters of the web is missing what many consider to be a basic accessibility feature. But even more concerning, this number hasn't budged between 2024 and 2025. Seems like we're stuck.
I give you this though. The detection methods miss some implementations. Skip links can also appear deeper in pages or target less conventional landmarks. These aren't detected by the Web Almanac analysis. But even accounting for that, we're looking at a majority of sites that either don't know about skip links, don't care or haven't prioritised them.
Given that skip links are relatively simple to implement, I think this is about something deeper than just technical difficulty.
A WebAIM screen reader survey reported that about 30% of respondents use skip links frequently. The usage however has been slowly declining as heading and landmark navigation have improved.
Skip links are especially helpful on sites with long headers, mega menus and many repeated elements.
My question is if Skip links are a fix for these terrible navigation structures we've come to build in websites. What if we fixed information architecture?
Think about it.
We've normalised these massive navigation menus that sprawl across the top of every page. These mega menus with dozens of links. Website headers are stuffed with promotional banners, social media widgets and email signup forms. We show all that before you even get to what you came for.
That's why skip links exist. We've collectively decided this clutter is acceptable. I think there's something backwards about this whole approach. We build increasingly complex navigation systems, then add a feature to bypass them.
Better information architecture would mean reconsidering what needs to be on every page. Do users really need access to every section of your site from every page? Maybe not. How about a more focused navigation that adapts to context? Could that reduce the need for skip links in the first place?
And yes, sometimes complexity is unavoidable. Large sites with diverse audiences genuinely need comprehensive navigation. E-commerce sites need filtering options. News sites need section navigation. Skip links still make sense. But not as a band-aid. They're a reasonable accommodation for the inherent complexity of that content.
Are we using skip links as an excuse to avoid harder design decisions?
Somehow though, I doubt the three quarters of the web that didn't implement skip links considered my question before deciding not to implement them.