Ben Buchanan wrote:
Yes, thanks for that. I'm pretty much aware of these issues. My point
goes back to a usability issue and what users are used to interacting
with on web sites.
I've seen a lot of inexperienced users double-click web links and form
buttons ("hey! they charged my credit card twice!"). Does that mean
browsers should be changed to only respond to double-clicks? Or should
users learn to click once?
[Yes, it's nice to disable buttons after the first click - but that's
also kind of reinforcing the fact the user did the wrong thing. To an
extent it should teach users that one click was enough.]
I don't see how that's reinforcing the fact that the user did the wrong
thing. That, I feel, is how the interface should handle the user input
and also provide feedback to the user that the users action has been
accepted by the system.
Users are used to doing quite a few things that aren't good. Plus, the
fact that "click here" is bad for accessibility means that the bad
habits of content authors and the expectations of some users is being
used to justify ignoring the best interests of another group.
It seems to me, and I hate to concede this, that the
"Click Here" phenomena has become a standard interface label to tell
users to do something, and if the don't see it they make another
assumption about that link. It's so part of the general design community.
I wouldn't say it's "standard" - although "click here" is common, it's
not like people build navigation lists like this:
- Click here to go to homepage
- Click here to go to about us page
- Click here to go to contacts page
- Click here to go to downloads page
That's the logical conclusion of saying "click here" is required for
people know they should click something. I haven't seen it anywhere,
instead you get:
- Home
- About Us
- Contacts
- Downloads
Most users would probably figure out that list is a set of links; if
people stopped writing "click here", users would get used to that too.
The "click here" is more in the content pages. I don't see anyone using
it in the menuing.
I don't know... the way we do label things... like Podcasting... Casting
Pods??? It doesn't really represent the action at all.
Sure, it's a really stupid name for a technology/technique; but it's
entirely accurate to use the term to link to that
technology/technique. Link text isn't the problem there :)
Yes it is, because people understand what you mean when you label
something as a Podcast, but does the name now associated with the
activity give any indication to the nature of the actual activity.
"I'm going to get some clobber and go for a burn." Do you understand
what that implies? People in my culture may, but will you? This is my
point, the language is becoming so isolated with jargon and not self
descriptive.
But I could be completely wrong, for ages people have been able to
download MP3s, yet it took calling it "Podcasting" for it to really take
off. I think I'm going to start "Farnarkling my web pages".
And isn't it great that
good old Google will let you search on over 6 billion references to
"Click Here"
Sure, but you don't know what any of them are about :)
That is exactly my point.
I'll be interested when I start seeing usability studies in this area.
Well, the link I posted is from a usability consultant; Jakob Nielsen
has also said not to use "click here"
(http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html); the W3C says it's
bad (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#gl-facilitate-navigation);
and in fact every other web content usability and accessibility
resource I've looked through says it's bad (if it specifically
referred to link text).
That's not usability studies on this observation of user experience.
That is what I am saying I'd be interested to see.
Regards
Geoff Deering
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
