|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/04/45 11:43
In article <48r746FlftieU1@uni-berlin.de>,
Gιrard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> dorayme wrote :
> > In article <48p61nFkmmdhU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> > Gιrard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
snip
> > There are other ways to indicate that they are clickable.
> >
>
> But they are not the most obvious, immediately recognizable ways;
> Nielsen refers to "maximum perceived affordance for clickability".
>
You cannot know that they are not the most obvious in general.
You are too impressed with the main (and generally good) messages
coming from intelligent people
> > 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, people exaggerate the ugliness they see and underestimate
> visual efficiency, practical consistency of site design from an user's
> perspective. Remember that a web author usually knows very well his own
> web site; a first time visitor may not and he will be reliably helped by
> a blue border around an image.
Your response to a fairly clear case I put is to ignore it and
talk about the dangers your prefered orthodoxy (rightly) would
avoid. Never give an inch eh?
I won't joke with you too much from now on, Mr Talbot (as you
view my lame attempts as serious exaggerations).
I really do think you need to be more independently minded.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|