W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Click here

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:29:34 -0700
Message-ID: <0cce01c23fb9$918c5cf0$2402a8c0@vaio>
To: "Lynn Alford" <lynn.alford@jcu.edu.au>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon White" <simon.white@jkd.co.uk>
> Users come to websites for principally two reasons: to find information or
to use a service like e-commerce. Because of this, links should lead the
user to where they want to go, without ambiguity. So, if a sighted user can
see clearly where a link is going to take them, or use the link's wording
for finding information through an internal search (or even an external one)
then they will probably use the website again and tell their friends. This
just makes good sense to me.

For further demonstration of why "click here" is bad all around, go to
Google and enter "click.here" (a period links words together) and see what
you find. Google and other search engines consider link text as an
endorsement of the relevancy of the linked document. "Click here" out of
context is meaningless, and that meaninglessness translates to your site's
search results.

Another point: some people don't "click," because they don't use a mouse.
They may type, or speak, or use a switch, or tap a screen. "Click here" is
bad for much the same reason that the onclick() event in scripting is bad:
the author assumes he or she knows how all users are using a site.

-
m
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 11:29:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:05 GMT