W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Black links in default.css (in CR-css3-page-20040225)

From: Devin Smoth <devin.smoth@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:37:40 -0800
Message-ID: <92992b460408301237176ed545@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

This of course means that we are reshaping something that has been
around since that web was created. Blue links have become the standard
and are looked for by all of those who "surf the Internet" on a
regular basis. Do we really want to change something that has been
around for so long, a tradition if you want to put it that way. I
always look for blue if I want to find a link and I think that is
something that we all do.

I realize that you are only using these right now for writing specs
but in the long run, whatever is used here, will become the way
everyone does it. Is that something we want to happen?

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:49:52 +0200, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Susan Lesch writes:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This is a quick comment that I hope reaches you before the end of CR
> > for your CSS3 Paged Media Module [1]. First, this style sheet [2] is
> > beautiful and  readable now that text-align: justify is gone (was it
> > there earlier for CSS3 modules?).
> 
> That's a matter of taste :-)
> 
> But it is true that, as long as browser don't hyphenate, justification
> often leads to lines  that   are    too     spaced      out.
> 
> >
> > Would it be possible to restore the blue link color rather than hide
> > links in black? The body of W3C's work has blue links. If there is a
> > reason to use black, maybe you will recommend that all W3C TR style
> > sheets change.
> 
> Most of the links are automatically generated and thus there are quite
> a few. Making them blue makes the text hard to read.
> 
> Moreover, the links aren't important enough for that much
> highlighting. They are meant for people reading the text, not for
> people reading it diagonally and are thus are better served with
> something like italics than color. (But italics are already used, so
> they are underlined, as is traditional for hyperlinks, even though
> that highlights them too much as well.)
> 
> The blue would also interfere with the visibility of the section
> headings, that are also blue. And links occurring inside something
> else, such as a heading or a note, would change the color of that
> something and thus destroy its meaning.
> 
> Maybe some other color is possible (gray?) for hyperlinks in the body
> text, but since there are already many different colors with different
> functions (blue headings, green notes, yellow and brown examples,
> brown keywords, blue definitions...), I think there is no room for
> more colors.
> 
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-page-20040225/
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-page-20040225/default.css
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html#format
> 
> And about recommending this style to other spec writers: I don't know
> what the typical density of hyperlinks in W3C specs is, what their
> role in the text is and what other colors are in use, but for many of
> the specs that I've seen, I think underlining links instead of making
> them blue would indeed improve the readability.
> 
> Bert
> --
>   Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
>   http://www.w3.org/people/bos/                              W3C/ERCIM
>   bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
>   +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
> 
> 


-- 
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/Devin_Smoth/devinsmothsigawe.gif
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 19:37:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:32 GMT