On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Arjun Mehta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will call you old school. > > I totally get what you're getting at. I really do. I like the idea > that if a noun acts as a hyperlink, it should lead to the actual > object that it describes. > > However, this has always been contextual, and as far as I can see, > will always be contextual. You're looking for a single object, but > that can be different things in different contexts. Um.... a contextual link is a very specific thing. > > > A simple example: on Yahoo, if I click on a category, it will bring > me to a more detailed search of all things within that category > (until a certain point of course). That is not a contextual link, it's a local navigation link, so of course the implication is that it will send you to a page with all things within that category. > > If within wikipedia though, I click on a hyperlink within an article > it will go to an article of that object within wikipedia. (check the > bottom of a wikipedia article however, and you will find hyperlinks > to out-of-context locations, but they are clearly marked and labelled > to GIVE them context). Yes. Contextual links within a wikipedia article take you to an article page about the noun you just clicked on - but this is different than what the Post is doing. The problem was that if the link in the Post article behaved like Wikipedia - there would not have been a problem - if I was taken to a profile page about the Hirshorn Museum that had basic info like Website, contact, profile - as well as -- links to all relevant Post articles about the museum - but that is not what the link did - it submitted a query, presented results. Here is the edge case where this is bad: I came across a number of times in other Post articles where the hyperlink submitted a search for all relavant articles about the hyperlinked anchor noun - and came up with 0 results. Not only did I expect it to take me somewhere - don't link to -0- results -- that's just bad. > > Naturally, within the wikipedia scenario, we have the context of the > "Wikipedia Experience". Users using wikipedia expect the hyperlinks > to do a certain thing because they understand the context they are > within. People using Yahoo expect the hyperlinks to act a certain way > because they understand the context they are within. > > Hmm I hope I'm being clear here. Basically, what I'm trying to > express is that within a certain environment, hyperlinks... even > links in general, do different things. I feel like I could go really > deep with this. > > It all comes down to the nature of the click of a mouse-button. Your > question "When is a hyperlink NOT?". That's actually a tough > question I think. > > We could limit the scope of context to that within a web-browser or > even within a web-site. But that does nothing, because we are still > dealing with mouse-clicks. And mouse-clicks, surely, have always been > contextual. The only universal thing that is expected from any obvious > clickable object being clicked on, is that SOMETHING will happen. What > that is... is a matter of intuition. > > And this is where us designers come into play. A primary goal of ours > is (or should be) to understand what is INTUITIVE. And moreso, make > the things that are being used, intuitive. > > I do agree that the Washington Post and others alike that use a > similar hyperlinking strategy are a bit off the mark usability wise. > Is it intuitive? > > In fact I think the question should be: "When is a hyperlink NOT > intuitive?" > > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
