RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Hi, It might look like this-) http://www.worth1000.com/entries/228000/228489TyBX_w.jpg Stuart On Fri, April 20, 2007 5:29 am, John Foliot wrote: Exactly, and I've yet to encounter a cell phone with a mouse attached grin. Cheers! JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Michael MD wrote: ...however I might use that word on pages that require javascript such as those that use an external api to display maps. The only people able to use those pages are people using a web browser that can execute javascript... and 99.99% of such users would be using a mouse or a pointing device designed to emulate a mouse! These phones have JavaScript support using WebCore and JavaScriptCore open source components, many without a pointing device http://www.s60.com/business/productinfo/applicationsandtechnologies/webrowse r/ Jason *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
interesting discussion I get a lot of mobile phone users here. click would definately not be a suitable word to use on any page mobile phone users are likely to look at. ...however I might use that word on pages that require javascript such as those that use an external api to display maps. The only people able to use those pages are people using a web browser that can execute javascript... and 99.99% of such users would be using a mouse or a pointing device designed to emulate a mouse! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Michael MD wrote: interesting discussion I get a lot of mobile phone users here. click would definately not be a suitable word to use on any page mobile phone users are likely to look at. ...however I might use that word on pages that require javascript such as those that use an external api to display maps. The only people able to use those pages are people using a web browser that can execute javascript... and 99.99% of such users would be using a mouse or a pointing device designed to emulate a mouse! Interesting. Can you point to the source of this statistical declaration? I can point to semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php], but I'm curious as to where you can state that 99.99% of user would be using a mouse or similar pointing device. Hard statistical data like this is very difficult to come by, and so any credible source is interesting to both myself, and I'm sure others. Cheers! JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context, rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances? Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Doesn't More details on product x mean exactly the same thing as Click here for more details on product x if the whole line is a link? Surely people recognise links enough that they don't need to be told to click every single one? On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:10:12 +1000, James Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context, rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances? Thanks James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Tyssen Design www.tyssendesign.com.au Ph: (07) 3300 3303 Mb: 0405 678 590 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
James Leslie wrote: On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context, rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances? One thing I try to encourage is to rephrase the statement to actually present the URL as part of the on screen text, for example: ...More information regarding foobar can be found at: a href=link_uri blah blahlink_uri/a. 1) almost everyone recognizes a structured URI as being a link, there is no ambiguity there 2) surprisingly, some people still print out web pages, and providing the actual uri in print benefits these people 3) making the uri the actual link text ensures that the link text is unique for the page 4) this is technology agnostic JF *blah blah in uri above = title, class or id declarations as required/desired *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Hi John,
Do you ever find that your solution causes you page layout problems
(that is, including the uri as the link text)?
When I first encountered “web standards” folk, it was suggested to me
that including uris as link text wasn’t ideal for accessibility reasons,
because of screen readers reading them out (tedious and often
meaningless for end user – Patrick Lauke summarises this in a post to
the list back on 31 October 2005, “Re: [WSG] {WSG] What's the best way
to display links?”.
Placing the a href tag around descriptive text can be more meaningful
(just as placing the a href around Click Here can be meaningless).
But in the largely academic world that I work in, scholarly citation is
the key to what we do, so we see including a url in its full glory on
the page as necessary, and at present we do make it the text that is
linked. This sometimes causes me problems in the design, breaking page
layout – possibly because I am not a brilliant exponent of css -
especially when you are citing urls created by government departments
which ridiculously long.
I am aware of several workarounds, but haven’t found them satisfactory.
Cheers,
Helen
John Foliot wrote:
James Leslie wrote:
On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of
our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here
for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist
that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context,
rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the
only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of
the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a
suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does
anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances?
One thing I try to encourage is to rephrase the statement to actually
present the URL as part of the on screen text, for example:
...More information regarding foobar can be found at: a href=link_uri
blah blahlink_uri/a.
1) almost everyone recognizes a structured URI as being a link, there is no
ambiguity there
2) surprisingly, some people still print out web pages, and providing the
actual uri in print benefits these people
3) making the uri the actual link text ensures that the link text is unique
for the page
4) this is technology agnostic
JF
*blah blah in uri above = title, class or id declarations as
required/desired
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Faulds:
Surely people recognise links enough that they don't need to be told to
click every single one?
I agree. The verb ('click here', 'go to' etc) really shouldn't form part
of the link text.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Foliot wrote: semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php] Granted, this appears to be more reliable than 99.9% - but isn't javascript required in order for thecounter.com to gather stats, or do they use web bugs? I think it is (semi) safer to say 4% of visitors to sites using thecounter.com counters do not have javascript enabled =) kind regards Terrence Wood *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
My good people,
It's really a matter of simple common sense. Yes, we want to cater to
the largest possible audience. But in all reality, unless our site in
question is the first web page someone has ever encountered, they'll
understand that whether they click, press enter or any other possible
means of activation, following a link is following a link.
In my opinion, click here is a stupid thing to put in a link. The text
of the link should do its best to describe what it actually points to.
For example:
A link that says Books about birds. Pretty obvious what your click
or whatever will bring you to. Instructions for activating the link are
superfluous to say the least.
If I purchase that Book about birds and open it to the table of
contents, does the description of a chapter say, Turn to page 95 for
information about bluebirds?
No!
It'll say Bluebirds...page 95.
The method we would use to reach page 95 is out of context of the
information.
As far as the URL showing on printwell thats another beast altogether.
*Joseph R. B. Taylor*
Sites by Joe, LLC
/Custom Web Design Development/
Phone: (609) 335-3076
www.sitesbyjoe.com http://www.sitesbyjoe.com
Helen Morgan wrote:
Hi John,
Do you ever find that your solution causes you page layout problems
(that is, including the uri as the link text)?
When I first encountered “web standards” folk, it was suggested to me
that including uris as link text wasn’t ideal for accessibility
reasons, because of screen readers reading them out (tedious and often
meaningless for end user – Patrick Lauke summarises this in a post to
the list back on 31 October 2005, “Re: [WSG] {WSG] What's the best way
to display links?”.
Placing the a href tag around descriptive text can be more
meaningful (just as placing the a href around Click Here can be
meaningless). But in the largely academic world that I work in,
scholarly citation is the key to what we do, so we see including a url
in its full glory on the page as necessary, and at present we do make
it the text that is linked. This sometimes causes me problems in the
design, breaking page layout – possibly because I am not a brilliant
exponent of css - especially when you are citing urls created by
government departments which ridiculously long.
I am aware of several workarounds, but haven’t found them satisfactory.
Cheers,
Helen
John Foliot wrote:
James Leslie wrote:
On a related note, though not involving galleries, I find a lot of
our clients want to have linked text along the lines of Click here
for more details on product x. I have managed to fairly much insist
that we always use the entire sentence as a link to show context,
rather than just the click here that they tend to want being the
only linked part. The main reason I have not been able to get rid of
the click here part altogether though is due to an absence of a
suitable alternative that incorporates other technologies... Does
anyone have any suggestions for these circumstances?
One thing I try to encourage is to rephrase the statement to actually
present the URL as part of the on screen text, for example:
...More information regarding foobar can be found at: a
href=link_uri
blah blahlink_uri/a.
1) almost everyone recognizes a structured URI as being a link, there
is no
ambiguity there
2) surprisingly, some people still print out web pages, and providing
the
actual uri in print benefits these people
3) making the uri the actual link text ensures that the link text is
unique
for the page
4) this is technology agnostic
JF
*blah blah in uri above = title, class or id declarations as
required/desired
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
begin:vcard
fn:Joseph R. B. Taylor
n:Taylor;Joseph
org:Sites by Joe, LLC
adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;work:609-335-3076
tel;cell:609-335-3076
url:http://www.sitesbyjoe.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Foliot wrote: semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php] Granted, this appears to be more reliable than 99.9% - but isn't javascript required in order for thecounter.com to gather stats, or do they use web bugs? good point... btw that 99.99% was never intended to be used as some kind of reliable statistic! so please don't quote it as such! - it was only a guess about something - perhaps I should have just said something like most... :-) I think it is (semi) safer to say 4% of visitors to sites using thecounter.com counters do not have javascript enabled =) I think I was talking about mobile phone users who in total would probably only barely be noticed by such web counters... (if they work by loading an image not all mobile browsers would display it on a page load and if it needs javascript then it would be a lot less again!) btw it seems that there are quite a few people out there who browse on their phones but do not often browse on a PC... so I don't think we can expect them all to be familiar with many of the conventions we might take for granted! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Terrence Wood wrote: John Foliot wrote: semi-credible stats showing that 4% of users cannot (do not?) support JavaScript [http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/March/javas.php] Granted, this appears to be more reliable than 99.9% - but isn't javascript required in order for thecounter.com to gather stats, or do they use web bugs? I think it is (semi) safer to say 4% of visitors to sites using thecounter.com counters do not have javascript enabled =) No argument, which is why I said semi-credible... like most web stats they are subject to numerous variables. However, for the sake of discussion, they can at least be referenced by all, unlike the incredulous 99.99% number I was questioning. JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Horner wrote: I'm looking at a design involving image thumbnails and the instruction to click images for larger version -- I have the idea that saying click is wrong, or rather the assumption that everyone is using a mouse is wrong. So, how would you word this instruction, or otherwise inform users that a small image links to a larger one? Images are linked to larger versions seems to passive-voice to me, and I can't think of any generic term for using a link. I racked my brain over this one, too (I build a lot of image galleries), and finally settled on 'Select an image to enlarge'. Long translation: 'Use whatever navigation method your browsing device employs to select an image thumbnail and hit enter to see an enlarged version.' Works for me. N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
I've been using View Larger Image. Perhaps even view is the wrong term now that I think about it. But wouldn't those with sight disabilities pick up on the alt and title tags of the img and href and ignore clicking on it in the first place? something like this: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= /br /View Larger Image/a Good discussion. :) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Hi, Images link to larger version. is less passive-voiced. Stuart On Wed, April 18, 2007 12:52 am, John Horner wrote: I'm looking at a design involving image thumbnails and the instruction to click images for larger version -- I have the idea that saying click is wrong, or rather the assumption that everyone is using a mouse is wrong. So, how would you word this instruction, or otherwise inform users that a small image links to a larger one? Images are linked to larger versions seems to passive-voice to me, and I can't think of any generic term for using a link. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On 4/18/07, Webb, KerryA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While it's true that not everybody will use a mouse (and some of these mouses will not have any auditory feedback), click is a well-understood term that shouldn't alienate any users. In my opinion. Yeah, but outside of the 'oo are we gonna offend someone?' aspect (which I agree is a bit spurious), it's also completely redundant. It's like writing 'Grab the handle and then push' on a door, instead of just 'push'. Using something more direct, like View larger image or Send us a message just flows better as written text. -Raena *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:54:22 +1000, Raena Jackson Armitage wrote: Using something more direct, like View larger image or Send us a message just flows better as written text. Exactly how to approach this depends on your audience. If your market is largely internet newbs, who aren't yet cofident with this mousey-thing they push around with their hand - gently walk them through it with 'click here to view a larger image' If your market is seasoned web standards developers 'larger image' is probably sufficient. ;) There is no one hard and fast rule - Know Thy Market! warmly Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Brian Cummiskey wrote: I've been using View Larger Image. something like this: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= /br /View Larger Image/a Good discussion. :) Let's introduce a new slant to this: what happens if there are 16 thumbnail images in a gallery (4 up, 4 across)? Are you going to write: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= / br /View Larger Image/a ...16 times? You *CANNOT* expect that the title attribute will be voiced by a screen reader, as this is directly affected by the verbosity setting established by the end user. If a power user sets verbosity to minimal (Advanced in JAWS, which has I believe 3 settings: Beginner, intermediate and advanced, with granular options on top of that such as Words Include Symbols - see the Freedom Scientific site for more details, and remember that this is *just* JAWS, there *are* other screen readers out there...)... At any rate, if they set it to advanced then JAWS usually does not read aloud the title attribute. So what you will have then, when bringing up a list of links on the page, is 16 unique links with the identical link text - hardly user-friendly or accessible. One way around this would be to announce prior to the image array to Click on any image to view a larger version (or similar). Another way, if the image is being populated via a database, would be to echo back the unique image name as part of the link text; this way, each link has unique text associated to it: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= / br /?php echo $imagetitle; ? - Larger Image/a ...for example. Placing the image title first in the link text will eliminate the annoying array of 16 unique links all starting with the same words, useful when the user orders the links alphabetically. Just some more to think about... Oh, for the most part, while avoiding the phrase Click may seem to be politically correct, it has become so common that even non-sighted users get it - it's like my blind friends saying see you later: no harm, no foul. Cheers! JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Hi, Yes, having mnore than one link with the same link-text but different href URL breaks fundamental accessibility guidelines. However, in this case, where there is also an image (with alt text) inside the link, would not the link text for a screenreader become: XXX View Larger image where XXX is different for each link? Then, the text for each link is unique and accessible. Stuart On Wed, April 18, 2007 11:29 pm, John Foliot wrote: Brian Cummiskey wrote: I've been using View Larger Image. something like this: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= /br /View Larger Image/a Good discussion. :) Let's introduce a new slant to this: what happens if there are 16 thumbnail images in a gallery (4 up, 4 across)? Are you going to write: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= / br /View Larger Image/a ...16 times? You *CANNOT* expect that the title attribute will be voiced by a screen reader, as this is directly affected by the verbosity setting established by the end user. If a power user sets verbosity to minimal (Advanced in JAWS, which has I believe 3 settings: Beginner, intermediate and advanced, with granular options on top of that such as Words Include Symbols - see the Freedom Scientific site for more details, and remember that this is *just* JAWS, there *are* other screen readers out there...)... At any rate, if they set it to advanced then JAWS usually does not read aloud the title attribute. So what you will have then, when bringing up a list of links on the page, is 16 unique links with the identical link text - hardly user-friendly or accessible. One way around this would be to announce prior to the image array to Click on any image to view a larger version (or similar). Another way, if the image is being populated via a database, would be to echo back the unique image name as part of the link text; this way, each link has unique text associated to it: a href=large.jpg title=larger detail image of img src=small.jpg alt= / br /?php echo $imagetitle; ? - Larger Image/a ...for example. Placing the image title first in the link text will eliminate the annoying array of 16 unique links all starting with the same words, useful when the user orders the links alphabetically. Just some more to think about... Oh, for the most part, while avoiding the phrase Click may seem to be politically correct, it has become so common that even non-sighted users get it - it's like my blind friends saying see you later: no harm, no foul. Cheers! JF *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
Hi, Know Thy Market is fine for usability (as far it goes). But, for accessibility, this is not sufficient. It's not just internet newbs who aren't able to use this mousey thing. Stuart On Wed, April 18, 2007 10:15 pm, Lea de Groot wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:54:22 +1000, Raena Jackson Armitage wrote: Using something more direct, like View larger image or Send us a message just flows better as written text. Exactly how to approach this depends on your audience. If your market is largely internet newbs, who aren't yet cofident with this mousey-thing they push around with their hand - gently walk them through it with 'click here to view a larger image' If your market is seasoned web standards developers 'larger image' is probably sufficient. ;) There is no one hard and fast rule - Know Thy Market! warmly Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Stuart Foulstone. http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk BigEasy Web Design 69 Flockton Court Rockingham Street Sheffield S1 4EB Tel. 07751 413451 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
It's a nice idea, this know your market thing, and I'm sure it's appropriate in a commercial context, but our market is *everyone*. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lea de Groot Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2007 7:16 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click? On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:54:22 +1000, Raena Jackson Armitage wrote: Using something more direct, like View larger image or Send us a message just flows better as written text. Exactly how to approach this depends on your audience. If your market is largely internet newbs, who aren't yet cofident with this mousey-thing they push around with their hand - gently walk them through it with 'click here to view a larger image' If your market is seasoned web standards developers 'larger image' is probably sufficient. ;) There is no one hard and fast rule - Know Thy Market! warmly Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:45:45 +1000, John Horner wrote: It's a nice idea, this know your market thing, and I'm sure it's appropriate in a commercial context, but our market is *everyone*. (The ABC, for the non-.au based, is the major government broadcasting arm) Yes, it is, so you would be justified in 'dumbing it down' for the next decade, at least, IMHO. But, for the majority of developers, there is a market that visits their website, and they should have a strong understanding of it. warmly, Lea ~ nice work in the Rural area, btw :) -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems Brisbane, Australia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On 19/4/07 8:29 AM, John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] One way around this would be to announce prior to the image array to Click on any image to view a larger version (or similar). This is the solution that I've (eventually) arrived at for most image galleries - just a simple line of text above the gallery itself explaining what you need to do. The images themselves or their captions are then left alone to function as intended. -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/ # This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal # This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential. You must not disclose or use the information in this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete the e-mail and all copies. The College does not guarantee that this e-mail is virus or error free. The attached files are provided and may only be used on the basis that the user assumes all responsibility for any loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not. The content and opinions in this e-mail are not necessarily those of the College. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
On 4/19/07, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly how to approach this depends on your audience. If your market is largely internet newbs, who aren't yet cofident with this mousey-thing they push around with their hand - gently walk them through it with 'click here to view a larger image' Sure, but how many do you think that is, realistically? Learning about how to follow links is one of the first things you get to know. If your market is seasoned web standards developers 'larger image' is probably sufficient. ;) I suspect you'll find there's a lot more than just 'seasoned developers' who know that clicking a link will do something. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
This is getting a bit off track, isn't it? The original post was concerned about the assumption that a user is using a mouse at all. For accessibility, it's a good idea to include a description within the link of exactly what it's linking to. Larger Image is not very descriptive. Larger image of what? Click here, is a bit silly in any link. If you're using the web, the assumption is that clicking (Or whatever method you use to follow links) is what you do. It's like posting a sign in front of a restaurant Walk inside to get food. It is a known, and there's no need to explain it again and again unless it is not visually or semantically obvious that it is a link at all. What the sign on the restaurant needs to say (if it is not obvious) that it's a restaurant, what type of restaurant it is, and if the architect did their job, it should be obvious where the door to the restaurant is, and what to do with it. Likewise for links. Quoting Raena Jackson Armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 4/19/07, Lea de Groot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly how to approach this depends on your audience. If your market is largely internet newbs, who aren't yet cofident with this mousey-thing they push around with their hand - gently walk them through it with 'click here to view a larger image' Sure, but how many do you think that is, realistically? Learning about how to follow links is one of the first things you get to know. If your market is seasoned web standards developers 'larger image' is probably sufficient. ;) I suspect you'll find there's a lot more than just 'seasoned developers' who know that clicking a link will do something. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
I'm looking at a design involving image thumbnails and the instruction to click images for larger version -- I have the idea that saying click is wrong, or rather the assumption that everyone is using a mouse is wrong. So, how would you word this instruction, or otherwise inform users that a small image links to a larger one? Images are linked to larger versions seems to passive-voice to me, and I can't think of any generic term for using a link. == The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is limited to resupplying any email and attachments == *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Horner wrote: I'm looking at a design involving image thumbnails and the instruction to click images for larger version -- I have the idea that saying click is wrong, or rather the assumption that everyone is using a mouse is wrong. Depends on the design, of course, but how about simply see larger version positioned underneath individual thumbnails (if we're talking about the odd one or two thumbs interspersed over various pages)? Or, if it's like a gallery, I'd think (though depends on audience) that users are savvy enough to know that if there are loads of small images, clicking them would open a large version. Possibly just hint at this with a little magnifying glass subtly placed over the corner of each, and/or having some sort of hover/focus state that reinforces this even further? P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John wrote: I'm looking at a design involving image thumbnails and the instruction to click images for larger version -- I have the idea that saying click is wrong, or rather the assumption that everyone is using a mouse is wrong. So, how would you word this instruction, or otherwise inform users that a small image links to a larger one? Images are linked to larger versions seems to passive-voice to me, and I can't think of any generic term for using a link. While it's true that not everybody will use a mouse (and some of these mouses will not have any auditory feedback), click is a well-understood term that shouldn't alienate any users. In my opinion. Kerry --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] What do we say if we don't say click?
John Horner wrote: Images are linked to larger versions seems to passive-voice to me, and I can't think of any generic term for using a link. Joe Clark suggests using something like, alt=Sunrise at Darling Harbour (link to larger image) - http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#h2-7035 Usually if an image is among a list or table of images; when it's small and the border changes when I mouseover then that's enough of a guide for me. Disabled people, particularly those with poor eyesight who want a larger version anyway, would probably understand the layout and some good ALT text like Joes suggestion. btw. It doesn't look like any of the CSS cursors would be an appropriate prompt. .Matthew Cruickshank http://hollloway.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
