|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 01/18/87 11:43
With neither quill nor qualm, dorayme quothed:
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603280005420.2279@ppepc70.ph.gla.ac.uk>,
> "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Gιrard Talbot wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well put.
> >
>
> Before doing too much clapping, you may need to consider exactly
> what this was a response to. It may very well be that there are
> clear cases where a set of thumbnails on a site are quite
> obviously links. The only way to sustain your clapping behaviour
> is to exaggerate and distort what I said (as you do, see below)
> and simply not use your imagination (this would take longer to
> explain, but I would be happy to do this if anyone was
> interested).
>
>
> > And (without specific reference to any particular page discussed
> > here), to my way of thinking there is nothing so *really* ugly as a
> > page which is scattered with "Click Here" directions, whose presence
> > was only felt necessary because the author had gone to excessive
> > lengths to camouflage all of the /normal/ indicators that something is
> > a link. So much for misguided "subtlety" :-((
> >
> > regards
>
> Talk about straw men! I am always very suspicious of religions
> and orthodoxies especially when adherents have to use such
> devices to clap on their fellows and make their points. I did not
> talk about "Click here directions" being "scattered all over the
> place" and would not dream of such a thing. You choose an
> exaggerated case. Here the price of ugly borders may well be the
> price worth paying. They may even not be ugly in some situations.
>
> This is the sort of tone and message coming from the gent you are
> so happy to clap: railroading all in the name of the religion on
> every detail. Yes, there is subtlety and taste and design
> considerations and you need to get used to these things as much
> as you obviously in the finer details of the technical sides of
> html and css. One size does not fit all, there are other ways to
> skin a cat besides blind obedience to certain practices.
>
> You might have more usefully said to Mr Talbot (who made some
> points in his original post, several times repeated, some of them
> good) that unless one has some reasons not to use link borders,
> one should do so. This is a very different tone and message to
> the one he made. And it is a very different one to the one you
> clap.
Hear hear! Give that lady a cigar!
I agree with you (for a change.) -And so do most web designers. Most
seem not to want the blight of a border on their images nor even the
focus ring. Yes, there are times when indicating link (or link vs.
visited) status is prudent or desirable, but more often than not the
clickable state of a thumbnail is (1) obvious in its own right, (2)
apparent from the pointer on hover, and (3) not even remotely obscure to
anyone who has surfed the Web for more than a few hours. Furthermore,
such a link is seldom critical to the page itself, although if it is,
associated content can easily and usually does make this obvious.
I understand the significance of the focus ring to accessibility, but it
should be a browser-set option, off by default, not something that mars
the aesthetics of everyone's page needlessly and annoyingly.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|