W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Zero-edits Counter Proposal for Issues 1 and 2 (Ping)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:15:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4B7C6A8A.3030800@gmx.de>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On 17.02.2010 23:09, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
 > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Julian 
Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
 >> Of course it is done in practice. People are accustomed to the fact that
 >> buttons mean "put in shopping basked"/"buy"/"delete", while blue 
underlined
 >> terms are links.
 >
 > Buttons equally indicate a<form method=GET>, so that's not a reliable
 > indicator of safe-ness.

Yes and no. They are not a reliable of *not* being safe. This is a bit 
different.

 >> I'm aware that these things are styled, and hacked around, but 
please don't
 >> claim that this is not the *default* way to present things.
 >
 > When we're talking about user interaction and expectations, it's
 > important to look at the user's experience in practice.  Links are
 > often styled as buttons as well.

See above. That's not good, but harmless as opposed to POSTs that hide 
behind things that look like simple navigation.

 > There is a weak correlation between the appearance of a link/button
 > and its safety.  But it's not strong, and not reliable.

This "weak" correlation is something I see in use in almost all web 
pages I use daily (Amazon, Bugzilla, banking sites, whatnot).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 22:16:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC