I had mentioned this to Matt R in IRC, but as I see it, the links that are in dash modules, though clickable, are not the only means to navigate to those elements. They were underlined on hover, which did give some indication that similar links were also clickable. If something in a dashmodule were the only means to navigate to something, perhaps the addition of a class to those links which can be specifically styled would be the answer.
I thought I had addressed the links in the plugins, but as was pointed out, a:visited trumped the underline. Apparently that's been addressed. I've been a bit out of the loop, so maybe more of this has been hashed out than what I've skimmed in this thread. I am for the record a solid -1 for *ALL* links being underlined. ~miklb On Mar 18, 11:08 am, Matt Read <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Owen Winkler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure what the full intent of r3333, but playing this way with > > the admin UI this close to release seems... Undesirable. > > > I've scaled back the change a bit in trunk r3340 so that it's not > > affecting every link, but also added some styles so that the links > > that appear in plugin configuration are visible. Also, I added some > > checks in the dropbuttons for items that are active, which we lost > > when the !importants came out of the CSS. I think this is a nice > > incremental improvement over what we had. > > > If there are links that are still not visible, we should probably > > address those. If the intent really was to make *all* of the links in > > the admin have underlines, sorry for misunderstanding that intent. > > Could you please explain why? > > > If this change seems reasonable, please consider merging it to makaanga. > > I haven't 'upped' yet, but 'a:visited' trumps all other 'a' styles. You > reintroduced no underline on a:visited which was the major problem > before. Since we are against colour we should not attempt to indicate > what has been visited. > > The original intent was to have links which are "flowing" with text (in > paragraphs) actually be seen. However after making them all underline, I > saw "clickable UI elements" I never knew existed. So I made them all > underline in hope of making people scream and rethink this part of the > admin usability. > > It's clear (seems to be only me though) that the current way (pre r3333) > is a mass sacrifice of usability to make something look pretty. Sure, > the manage posts page, and dashboard, and some other pages which use > bold to indicate clickable areas are clearly clickable in that context. > However using this method to indicate clikcability is an extremely > difficult thing thing to do. In the context of a paragraph, is > underlined a link, or is bold a link like everywhere else? Why is one > heading on dash module a link and the other is not, while they look the > same? etc. > > There is no common means by which to determine what parts of text are > clickable in the admin (I'm not talking about buttons). Even as > mentioned above, the "boldness" parts that are clickable, are > intermingled with other normal text; It's not entirely clear at first > glance that the "list element" (refering to manage items) contains > clickable parts. > > I'm not saying all hyperlinks _have_ to be underlined, in fact I'm not > talking about 'links' here. But you should be able to glance at a page > and see what is _clickable_, which is true for 70% of the habari admin > right now. I know we are making a web "application", but it's still the > web, and people expect it to behave as such. > > So I'd love to hear any thoughts anyone has. > > ... as long as it's not "oooh, links are always underline so if we do > this I'm leaving, nah nah" :P --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
