|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 10/22/05 15:59
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Andy Dingley wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:47:24 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
> <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >If you wanted the hover effect on visited links, yes.
>
> Now why on earth wouldn't you ?
I refer the hon. Gent. to my previous answer:
|Last occasion that I was involved in this, we decided that we didn't -
|their distinctive colour was considered enough - but that choice
|isn't binding on anything else, obviously.
Speaking for myself, I consider the :hover to be a rather fatuous
decoration, which all too often tempts deezyners to Mystery Meat
Navigation, in which the links are effectively indistinguishable from
normal text unless and until one hovers over them. But that hadn't
quite happened here, and the "customer" wanted the hover effect: I
didn't bring my personal opinion on :hover into the discussions at
all. I did, however, point out that her <a name=...> anchors were
responding to her :hover style, and the reviewing team agreed that
wasn't such a good idea. Which brings us back to the point.
At the start of reviewing her design, there was no distinction between
nonvisited and visited links.
After fixing the anchors problem by using a:link:hover, the only
distinction between nonvisited and visited links was that the visited
links didn't respond to :hover. I managed to convince the reviewing
team that a change in colour was desirable in addition, though.
None of this is binding on anyone else's design, so I'm not going to
get into an argument about it. I'm just trying to summarise how this
came to pass in one particular case.
OK?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|