|
|
Posted by David Segall on 09/26/06 15:00
usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name wrote:
I'm glad you started a new thread I was about to do so myself. For
those that did not see the previous one the arguments were based on
the literal interpretation of an old Style Guide, specifically this
page <http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/NoMechanics>.
>dorayme:
>
>[re Mentioning The Mechanics]
>
>> There are many reasons to avoid it, I agree. But this sort of
>> reasoning worries me. "any mention..." sounds to me to be weak.
>
>What if it was worded more generally:
>
> Anything unrelated to the real content distracts
> the user from the real content.
>
>> To go on and on about it, yes. To not try to avoid the need, yes.
>> But now and then one gets caught. I imagine it helps people that
>> I very very occasionally "say things about the mechanics".
>
>I think I would need examples to agree or disagree with that.
Let me provide a specific and common example. "Click on the picture to
see an enlarged image" such as <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.
Compare that with this page from another proponent of "No Mechanics"
<http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/ragbag.html>. There is only a
very subtle indication that the picture is a link but if you move your
mouse over it you discover that it is. However, you still don't know
if clicking on it will provide a PDF on how Glasgow University
welcomes new students or an enlarged image.
The Style Guide was clearly intended to promote a standard way of
writing hypertext so that users would have a common view of links and
did not need an explanation. Any other conventions or standards should
be welcomed and adhered to but surely it is preferable if the user is
told what to expect rather than be forced to experiment.
P.S. Thanks to those who helped with
<http://shirley.profectus.com.au>. As you can see I adopted a
combination of your suggestions.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|