|
|
Posted by dorayme on 10/04/41 11:43
In article <48p61nFkmmdhU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Gιrard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> ...I personally strongly recommend that you do not remove the
> border on a clickable image (also called/referred as reactive image)
> because such border may be the only thing revealing easily and visually
> to the user that it is a clickable image. A link or clickable image
> should always be easy to recognize as such.
Why would you "strongly recommend" something because something
else "may" be the case? It is for good reason that so many people
ask how to remove these ugly border (as you rightly point out
they do).
There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.
Sometimes, they are just obviously clickable as in a list of
thumbnails even without the words "Click on the following to
enlarge" or to that effect.
Sometimes it is better to have that than a million ugly bordered
thumbnails.
Sometimes, it does not matter whether they are known beforehand
to be clickable. This surprises? Think, maybe there is a very
clear other way to link and this is just anextra facility. Or
maybe just a nice surprise. Is there no room for subtlety? For
surprise?
Next you will be telling folk to underline all their links!
beware of joining the army talibaning their way through the
streets of html <wicked grin... >
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|