- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 08:29:34 -0700
- 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 UTC