|
|
Posted by David Segall on 11/02/81 11:59
usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name wrote:
>David Segall:
>
>> Let me provide a specific and common example. "Click on the picture to
>> see an enlarged image" such as <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.
>
>'Click' assumes both that the user's primary way of following a link is
>by pressing a button and that clicking can only perform a retrieval.
>Neither assumption always stands on the WWW. There are other ways of
>following a link, e.g, by voice activation, by keyboard input, by
>keypad input, by pointing with a pen, and there are other actions that
>can be performed by clicking.
I don't think I need to explain all that :) Users know what click
means even if they use some other method to achieve it. The fact that
there are other actions that can be achieved by clicking is why I
think that my explanation is required.
>
>> 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.
>
>I can see immediately that it is a link by its blue border. There is a
>fundamental difference, though, between this ornamental image, if the
>author would permit me that, and your gallery of pictures. Your
>gallery is designed for people to view the larger pictures, isn't it?,
Agreed, that is why I added the "mechanics"
>whereas it is really neither here nor there if a user misses that the
>ornamental image is a link to a larger version.
Perhaps, but the author thought some of his visitors would enjoy the
larger image. I did. I think telling them that it is available would
be helpful and, in any case, I think telling them what to expect if
they do follow the link is highly desirable.
>
>> 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.
>I would think it is still more preferable that the user knows what's
>going to happen without being told and without having to experiment.
Of course. And if the users and authors were restricted to the era
when the style guide was written that aim might be realized. We would
not have graphic artists as web page authors who think coloured
borders look geeky and we would not have users who are more accustomed
to Flash sites than standard ones.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|