Terrence Wood wrote:
Jakob Nielsen responded to my request for clarification
Jacob has used this request for his latest article
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/within_page_links.html
Regards
Jason
**
The discussion list for
My sincerist apologies to Thierry, his interpretation of Nielsen was
indeed correct. And thanks, I have certainly learnt something
With reference to the articles Thierry cited earlier Jakob Nielsen
responded to my request for clarification as follows:
Does this imply that links to
Thierry Koblentz said:
Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these articles
or that I am plain wrong?
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
based on that misintrepretation.
Further, you are defending your opinion by simply being contrary and
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It seems that for the author the bottom line is *consistency*
Consistency *is* the bottom line for usability. I have never
disputed
that. Nielsen also says use platform conventions. Creating a list of
links
to resources within a page is a convention for
Al Sparber:
Very distracting
Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first and
you must scroll to get the first screen of content?
- even more so when there are mixed links some scroll to another point,
others load new documents.
Agreed. This is really about consistency
At 12:22 PM 2/9/2006, Al Sparber wrote:
Getting away from the FAQ thing to links within documents, I find
that sort of navigation almost as annoying as popup windows. It
might very well be a convention, but I do consider it a negative for
usability. Very distracting - even more so when there
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Al Sparber:
Very distracting
Are you talking about when there is just the list of links is first
and
you must scroll to get the first screen of content?
For me, it's any link that scrolls the page. I'm old enough to get
disoriented, I guess. The
Terrence Wood wrote:
Thierry Koblentz said:
Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these
articles or that I am plain wrong?
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
based on that misintrepretation.
I disagree.
Further, you are defending
Terrence Wood wrote:
Thierry Koblentz said:
Are you saying that you disagree with my interpretation of these
articles or that I am plain wrong?
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
based on that misintrepretation.
I disagree.
Further, you are defending
From: Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a web designer further distinguished between links that jump
within a page vs. those that load a new page, would that obviate
your objection?
It would mitigate it. I find it easier to tolerate a FAQ or Q/A thing
if it's apparent that all of the
Hey Tierry and Terrance,
This is a respectful suggestion. Since Jakob Nielsen is not dead and
Useit.com is not the King James Bible, Talmud, Torah, Quaran etc., why
not email him and get his opinion on this. In fact, I asked his opinion
on this recent adlinks phenomena just today, where
Thierry Koblentz said:
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an opinion
based on that misintrepretation.
I disagree.
So you keep saying, but your actions are different.
you use skip links on your site but are argueing here that every
link must load an entirely new
Terrence Wood wrote:
Thierry Koblentz said:
Both. You have misinterpreted the articles, and have formed an
opinion based on that misintrepretation.
I disagree.
So you keep saying, but your actions are different.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
Please see the bottom of this message.
you use
Thierry Koblentz said:
Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list
said so?
It's a pretty common design pattern, and no-one challenged it. But
discuss vs. mention is a pedantic argument - let's move on.
USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading
a new
Terrence Wood wrote:
USEIT said clicking a link should have the only effect of loading
a new document in the same browser window.
News to me, I have never heard of such a recommendation. Googling
USEIT doesn't support you on this point either.
Links that don't behave as expected undermine
Thierry Koblentz said:
A link should be a simple hypertext reference that *replaces the current
page* with new content. English is not my native language so I may be
missing some subtle nuances here
Yes, you have completely missed the point of the recommendation. You are
misquoting a
Terrence Wood wrote:
Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature
is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the
user to another part of the same document.
Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are
talking about not opening new
Terrence Wood wrote:
Both of the articles mentionned abobe say that the defining feature
is to *replace* the document with another one, *not* to take the
user to another part of the same document.
Again, you are misquoting the recommendation. Both articles are
talking about not opening new
Justin Carter said:
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on
the
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Justin Carter said:
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already
a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch
I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =)
Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been
discussed in this thread.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch
I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing
Al Sparber said:
I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale food
markets in America. So let's call it a push and move on, eh?
Your foo beats mine Al =)
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
The discussion list for
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Al Sparber said:
I spent 20 years designing and building some of the most upscale
food
markets in America
Terrence Wood wrote:
a marketing-oriented person would probably eat you for lunch
I doubt it. I spent over a decade in marketing =)
Besides, a solution for getting topics above the fold has already been
discussed in this thread.
Which one are you referring to?
A serie of anchor links at the
Thierry Koblentz said:
AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed;
Please.
I don't think it is better in term of usability/accessibility, and what
about semantic?
Why not? And what about semantics?
I believe the document is more coherent with the answers following the
questions rather
From: Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
See above. I'm not sure there was agreement that a definition list
is the
semantic answer. What about headings for Q's and paras for A's. The
heading can be viewed in a document outline (by some browsers), and
it
avoids the whole Q/A is not a
On 2/8/06, Al Sparber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-)
http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/
Hmm... it'd be nicer if there weren't anchor tags in there/the H3 were
used directly. Not being amazingly JavaScript saavy, is there a
Al Sparber said:
Here's another approach you're sure not to like :-)
http://www.projectseven.com/csslab/swapclass/outline/
Presume you are talking to me? Don't get me wrong Al, I love the
interactive aspect of the net and that is, in fact, what drew me to it in
the first place.
I'm not going
Terrence Wood wrote:
Thierry Koblentz said:
AFAIK, it has been mentionned but not discussed;
Please.
Please what? I'm sorry but AFAIK when this option came up nobody mentionned
its pros and cons. Is it de facto *the* option because 2 people on this list
said so?
If I remember correctly, there
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the
inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to jump to
a keyword they are looking for.
DEWR.gov.au
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web
Publishing)
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found
] On Behalf Of R Walker (RMW Web
Publishing)
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:25
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the inability
to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Samuel Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Just because a large subset of your users don't use a particular
function on your web browser is not a good justification to disable
Replies in body,
And if the toggles are done correctly I understand that the find
functions will still behave correctly, because the headings will have
appropriate key words in them anyway. Presuming of course you have them
written descriptively.
Your effectively disabling it because it is
From: Samuel Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zah? I thought this was about showing/hiding content within divs.
Not matter how well written your content/headings whatever, you
shouldn't disable parts of the browser interface. I've read that
sentence above about three times and I can't understand
R Walker (RMW Web Publishing) wrote:
A big reason for not using toggles for FAQs we found was the
inability to use the browsers find (Find in this page) feature.
Often the reason for using toggles is that the page's content is quite
large. Users would normally us their browsers find feature to
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read more than one question on
the page.
A short script could check past #
... as eg. Moo.FX does - http://moofx.mad4milk.net/#introduction
So it's pretty easy to add.
--
Jan Brasna :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com | www.wdnews.net
**
The discussion list for
On 2/7/06, Justin Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It truly is frustrating when FAQ pages hide everything with
invisible DIVs. As already mentioned it makes Ctrl-F useless (which
I personally find very annoying), and it also makes me click a whole
bunch of useless + symbols if I want to read
Following a bug report (not in the script, but in a browser), I have made
a few changes to the original solution; it now uses images and seems to work
in everything but Opera 6.05.
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/toggle_elements.asp
Regards,
Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thierry Koblentz
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 03:23
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] cool FAQ page [follow up]
Following a bug report (not in the script, but in a browser), I have
made
a few changes to the original solution; it now uses images and seems to
work
42 matches
Mail list logo
