Re: [WSG] Link definition
> And yes, I'd say it's common knowledge with (sighted) users that an > underline signifies a link. That's why it's not recommended to use > underlined styles for other texts. Of course, underlines are not the > only clue as to what is and isn't a link. In most cases, it depends on > context. E.g. in a navigation bar that's in a traditional location (top > or left), users would more likely than not come to expect text to be > links, particularly if it's arranged in a list. In this case I'd posit > that underlines are not needed. The question "underlining of links standard knowledge?" is more of a usability question rather than a web standards question. Underlined links are one of the few well-understood aspect of the web - like the back button - so changing this behaviour should be considered carefully. While I agree with Patrick about navigation links, some would argue that you should never change default link behaviour - colour or underlines. Instead, the users should determine these aspects for themselves. The downside of this argument is that changing default behaviour can sometimes enhance usability: - the use of hover effects (to provide additional feedback) - increasing the padding around the a element (to aid "clickability") - turning off underlines and using border-bottom instead (to increase readability for certain user groups) - or even (contentiously) the use of background image icons to show offsite links. In the end, the decision to change default link behaviour should be determined by the type of site, the target audiences and most importantly, by user testing - not by black and white statements. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] Link definition
The Man With His Guide Dog At The Tent Store wrote: All this taalk about web standards got me thinking about the underling of links. As I understand it is that a person can turn on or off the underlineing of links via there browser options. If a person turns off the underlineing of links how would a web designer highlight a link? Is the underlineing of links standard knowledge? If a user disables a default setting, then it's not really up to the designer to make up for that (if that was your question). And yes, I'd say it's common knowledge with (sighted) users that an underline signifies a link. That's why it's not recommended to use underlined styles for other texts. Of course, underlines are not the only clue as to what is and isn't a link. In most cases, it depends on context. E.g. in a navigation bar that's in a traditional location (top or left), users would more likely than not come to expect text to be links, particularly if it's arranged in a list. In this case I'd posit that underlines are not needed. Patrick H. Lauke -- _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] Link definition
All this taalk about web standards got me thinking about the underling of links. As I understand it is that a person can turn on or off the underlineing of links via there browser options. If a person turns off the underlineing of links how would a web designer highlight a link? Is the underlineing of links standard knowledge? Angus MacKinnon MacKinnon Crest Saying Latin - Audentes Fortuna Juvat English - Fortune Assists The Daring Web page: http://members.shaw.ca/dabneyadfm Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. http://www.choroideremia.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
