[bodge5000]

Why put a link to the footer in the header which contains links to other pages when you can just put your links directly in the header?

I know the reason why, because it makes the page cluttered, whereas having it at the footer does a better job of hiding it. But isn't that the exact problem that the hamburger menu was made to fix?

[misterprime]

That question is addressed in the article as well: "The biggest headache when coming across these menus on the web is the complete disregard for accessibility."

And by "accessibility" I'm quite certain the author means "usability for people with impairments that don't allow them to use a mouse and keyboard or touch screen".

[PhasmaFelis]

Yes, and this fixes it better than the hamburger menu does. Read the article.

[bodge5000]

I did read the article, don't make assumptions.

The article discusses the problems of a hamburger menu but doesn't address why its used, and then goes on to suggest a solution which does a worse job of what the hamburger menu is actually designed for.

[PhasmaFelis]

> I did read the article, don't make assumptions.

You asked "Why put a link to the footer in the header which contains links to other pages when you can just put your links directly in the header?" The article answers this question, quite clearly and in detail.

[bodge5000]

Ironically it seems like you didn't read my comment. The first line explains why thats a bad solution, because its just moving clutter around the page but with extra steps

[PhasmaFelis]

I read it, it just doesn't make sense. There's nothing harmful or disruptive about having lots of links tucked away at the bottom of the page, out of the way. Hiding those links in a hamburger menu doesn't fix the problem, because there's no problem to fix. But it does introduce several other, more significant problems, which are described in the article.