- From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:24:01 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> From: Kynn Bartlett [SMTP:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com] > > "Click" should be considered, in my opinion, common usage -- or [DJW:] The real problem with "click" is it represents a failure to think about appropriate hypertext, which, in my view, should represent the application of the document, not the mechanics of navigating it. Terminology that assumes that everyone uses GUI browsers is just one symptom of this. [DJW:] The issue is really a content provider one, not a browser user on. > > PS: About underlines -- they were never the best way to indicate > a link, to begin with. People who have to have links underlined > should use the appropriate local CSS. > [DJW:] An inversion of this, is if users don't like underscores, they should configure the browser to suppress them (which is much easier for most users than creating an !important style sheet to cancel the content provider's style sheet). [DJW:] In this context, the very need for the "too tip" implies that the text is not clearly a link, and the design has not been consistent, in that some links are underlined and some are not. The problem is not whether or not links should be underlined but whethe content provider should change the presentation of links from that which the user expects. In combination with non-standard link colours, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990502.html points out that people are now relying on underlines to recognize links (and being confused when they aren't links.)
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 07:31:45 UTC