- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:51:37 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> And actually, we don't automatically feel compelled to make a > distinction between link and visited link, especially if the overall > design is such that making the distinction feels contrived. Whilst I might agree that the only justification for blue and purple is consistency with a questionable original choice, I have found that making the distinction is more important than designers seem to think. One of the many current design fashions is to disable the distinction, even on forum sites. I had problems with white on white text on a UK mobile phone service web site (presumably some of the text ceases to be white if you enable scripting), so I turned off colours. I found that it generally (much as expected) made most sites easier to read - the main exception being where background colours are used in place of table borders. But I also found that having the visited links distinction back was very useful, in particular for the forums, where it meant I could easily find threads that I had been interested in on previous sessionns. My view, therefore, is that current web design practice veers too far towards disabling visited colours.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 01:48:43 UTC