|
|
Posted by usenet+2004 on 11/27/07 11:59
David Segall:
> [usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name]:
> Users know what click means even if they use some other method to
> achieve it.
'Click on ... to see', assuming you mean 'to depress and release a
mouse button rapidly', is presumptuous. But you appear to be
suggesting that 'click', if not in the process of a semantic shift, is
an acceptable substitute for a more general term. The synecdochic
click.
How about a more general term then? 'Activate'. Or even better,
'follow'. 'Follow' both reinforces the idea that '[a] link is a
connection from one Web resource to another' and has the advantage that
it singles out the action of retrieval. There, killed two birds with
one stone. Mind you, these are terms for concepts that I wouldn't
recommend mentioning on webpages!
> The fact that there are other actions that can be achieved by clicking
> is why I think that my explanation is required.
Then you realise that your "explanation" can be wrong.
[...]
> >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.
I think you would have to provide examples for me to take that as
anything but a strawman. You don't run afoul of the principle Don't
Mention The Mechanics just by including Flash or having a fancy design.
A rough test for this principle is to print your page and read it.
--
Jock
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|