Next message: Nick Kew: "Re: Machine readable format for validation results"
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:52:48 +0100 (BST)
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, www-validator@w3.org, www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0109291740240.15813-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Quality tips: ready for release?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > At 02:56 PM 9/28/2001 , Dan Connolly wrote:
> > >I integrated various updates to the tips
> > >themselves... added Aaron's "click here"
> > >tip with supporting materials from Sean.
> >
> > In my opinion, the argument "but not everyone clicks!"
> > is entirely the wrong reason for telling people not to use
> > "click here."
you'd use 'follow this!' instead.
one reason why such terms shouldn't be used is that 'click here' and
the rest lead to cognitive dissonance; they're imperatives in a sea of
non-imperative text.
another is that it is link text that does not describe what it links
to, but is still often shown or described differently, drawing
attention to it and away from the surrounding text. Imagine non-link
text was not there at all (e.g. set text colour to background colour
for graphical visual browsers). can you still navigate the page, or
are you lost in a maze of unhelpful 'click here's? Attention flickers
from link to link, as the links stand out and the reader is unlikely
to be at a final destination and is looking to get there; often only
link text is read. It's best to make the text as useful as possible.
Picking the limits of the text phrase for the link is also an art in
itself. I feel that the conventions of hypertext grammar are yet to be
widely established, but I'd favour too much in the link (adjectives
plus noun, an entire phrase) over too little.
L.
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>