At 02:09 PM 04/28/02 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
My suggestion is to make all links (in the content section):
a:link { text-decoration: none; } a:visited { text-decoration: none; } a:active { text-decoration: underline; } a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
Bill, the default styles are important. We can "force" people to upgrade their old buggy browsers, we cannot "force" people to fix their disabilities. We don't want to discriminate the latter group even if it makes the site look somewhat nicer. And unfortunately being a sophisticated user doesn't help here :(
I guess I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that some people might not be able to see the blue text color and therefore not see that it's a link? Therefore we need the underline?
And since the main toc and the toc at the top of each page are obviously links then that's why it's OK to not underline those?
In other words, if someone can't distinguish blue from black then it's still obvious what are links. Is that what you are saying?
exactly.
It still looks like a mixed style when the index.html pages that have a list of links (with a small description indented) underlined and then go to the page where their are links are not underlined. Then on the page the links are underlined again.
Now I don't follow you. Currently we have non-default styles only for the TOC and the menu. What other mixes are you talking about?
Non-underlined links are so common these days I wonder how color blind people set up their browsers. I know you can override style sheets, but I wonder if you can just override the underline style. I suppose the hover underline is very helpful.
Sites that I cannot use from linux are common too. Sites that are based on technologies not available on other platforms are unfortunately common too. Why do we try to find an excuse in other sites?
On one side you try to be HTML/CSS standard complient. On the other hand you try to change these markup to be non-standard.
Note, that I agree with you 100% that non-underlined links look better. All I'm advocating is following standards and not cutting off minorities.
The only place I'm OK to deviate from the standard are the menus, where images are commonly used and therefore people are used that they aren't underlined. (So I don't care if we use underline on hover, or color change here).
To me it looks like we are trying to follow standards which are convenient to us. And look in the other direction, when we don't want to.
I know nothing of this, but from reading I wonder if the reason blue is the default link color is because, in general, a majority of color-blind people tend to see blue on white better than other colors.
One site says:
DO use blue, yellow, white and black if you really must use colors to distinguish items. These combinations are less likely to be confused than others.
Another site says:
Not only can most color-blind people see black and white accurately, but they see all shades of yellow and blue. Most color-blind people can even see dimmer shades of yellow like gold and olive, for example.
There are text browsers that have no colors, or running on b&w console.
To end, this is a group effort and not my personal toy, so if others feel stronger about looks please go ahead and change the styles the way you think is better.
p.s. I'm finishing the sitemap generator, and will present it soon.
__________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
