CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)

CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Nick RAGOUZIS (Interfacility)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nick RAGOUZIS (Interfacility)
Date:
Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:57:21 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Kathy Gill <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> ----------
>> From:         Joe Clark
>> Text should be in text as the default mode, and rendered as graphics
>> only if we can really justify it.
>>
> no argument here.
>
>> Underlines? Turn them off with CSS.
>>
> how am I to know which "colored words" are links and which "colored words"
> are colored because the designer wanted some color other than black? only by
> mousing over.
>
> underlines are part of the navigation system -- the communicate "link" in a
> way that color alone does not.
>
> until all the browsers support user-styles to override designer decisions
> that make sites unusable, i cannot recommend turning off underlines *as a
> general statement*. *IF* the links are solely in a clear navigation
> structure (ie, a horizontal or vertical navigation 'bar') then my opposition
> is lessened.
>
> Kathy
>

Kathy,

I'm thinking that you might have an appropriate perspective to propose a
guideline for when removing underlines _is_ appropriate. A guideline that
addressed issues such as constructs, presentation (e.g., in graphics, not),
functional/operational purposes, aesthetics, model-compliance, etc. The
conservative approach, sort of a: "if you _must_ then ..."

I am not convinced that it's all that clear, one way or another.

Among the things I have high confidence about is that we will look back at
the underlined-link stage as part of a Brechtian-esk "designation" period,
with things like the underlines, and the "reactive" pointers, and the "link
here" text and icons being among the leading ornaments and signatures of our
"quaint" time.

These things will probably disappear in a few years. Maybe by 2004, to pick
a to-despair-over date. And they'll probably have their own "retro" periods,
with the first around ... 2008?

At some point we'll probably wonder why we didn't spend more efforts,
jointly, making sure everything is linked to meaningful things (among other
user-serving disciplines we didn't practice much "back then"), and teaching
everybody about that simple, easy-to-follow and easy-to-remember rule.

But I am serious in wondering if, for now, such a guideline, conservative in
demands on the user, might be helpful. Such a guideline might inform
practice for the period we're about to enter ... that of links with multiple
starting or multiple ending resources, or both, just to name one new
opportunity.

Best,
--Nick
-------------
Nick Ragouzis         [log in to unmask]         1-415-922-3463

- Interfacility  - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.interfacility.com/
Helping organizations perform accelerated interactive design projects.

- iBuilders Project Managers Forum  - http://projectmanagersforum.net/
Home of the Collexicon of Project Manager's Frustrations.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2