|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 01/29/62 11:43
dorayme wrote :
> In article <48r746FlftieU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> GΓ©rard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote :
>>> In article <48p61nFkmmdhU1@uni-berlin.de>,
>>> GΓ©rard 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.
We're talking in general terms. I say that most of the times, having a
blue border around an image makes it clear to the visitor that he can
click the image, makes it clear to him that it is a clickable image,
that he is viewing a reactive image.
> You are too impressed with the main (and generally good) messages
> coming from intelligent people
>
Why the personal comment?
Do you read my mind? over the internet? Your comment suggests that you
do not believe that I can reach, all by myself, my own conclusions on
webpage designs/decisions.
I am the only one in this thread who genuinely tried to back up his
claims, his opinions with sources, references, links and quotes. You
certainly have not.
>>> 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
A fairly clear case starts with an url, with concrete example, with a
demonstration, with a testcase, with something tangible that people can
see, can test, with a whole and complete webpage where anyone/everyone
can examine a webpage and then make up his mind, choose his side, choose
his webdesign "party", "orthodoxy", etc.. A fairly clear case does not
start with "Sometimes" and does not include "maybe", "perhaps", "could
be", "it's possible" and other general, abstract, hesitation vocabulary.
Furthermore, if you're bringing up the point of ugliness as something
that can override a general consistent web design principle that a very
wide majority of books, authors, gurus, usability studies agree on,
converge on. In other words, your "clear case" better show us a really
really *_ugly_* case of ugliness 2px thick blue border surrounding
thumbnail images.
> is to ignore it and
> talk about the dangers your prefered orthodoxy (rightly) would
> avoid. Never give an inch eh?
>
I'm not ignoring it. Read again. There may be exceptions but, generally
speaking, following such rule - which is, I repeat, a sane, safe web
design of improving user experience, navigability and usability - is my
best recommendation. *My* recommendation.
> I won't joke with you too much from now on, Mr Talbot (as you
> view my lame attempts as serious exaggerations).
Lame attempts: certainly. Over-excessive characterization with words
like talibaning: definitely. A serious attempt would be to start with an
url. Otherwise, at least, start with some books, authors, reviews,
accessibility article, etc.. which demonstrates that real ugliness can
and should override sound web design practices promoting intuitive
clickability thanks to a simple (no icon to wonder/guess about, no
reading on what is clickable to do) graphical cue.
A serious attempt in a newsgroup starts with a real name too, Mr
dorayme. Lars Eighner once said in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
newsgroup:
"someone who refuses to identify himself [in discussion newsgroups]
cannot expect his opinions to count for anything."
>
> I really do think you need to be more independently minded.
>
I hope the original poster will do that and make his mind for himself.
The original poster was fully and completely answered on his main topic
and on other issues that he raised: like tutorials and references. Now,
it will be all up to him to make his mind and then do whatever he wants
to do with his images. Same with you. And same with me.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|