|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/29/10 11:43
In article <48ru5aFld2h2U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Gιrard Talbot <newsblahgroup@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> 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.
I have no argument with the above. It is a statement of pure
fact. You might regard it as irrelevant that some of us would
rather die than follow it. As I have said, (no, I did not prove
it, more on this later) there are many other ways to indicate
that pics, thumbnails in particular, are links. There are
situations where it simply does not matter because there are
clear alternative text links, these pic links being a faster and
easier way for those that might stumble or be savvy or be keen to
explore and hang about.
> > 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 greatly regretted this. I am sorry. I think it was a bad lunch,
Mr Flavell's clapping behaviour (which I dealt with first for
some reason) and a flaw in my character. Can you forgive me? I am
quite serious, it was unbecoming and rude.
> 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.
Yes and no to this. Yes, if we had the time to write small
theses, these things could be thrashed out more thoroughly. I
admire your commitment to high ideals. But I have winced at too
many pages of thumbnails where it simply has not occured to the
writer that you can turn these useless _link_ borders off, it
being also blindingly obvious that they are thumbnails put there
for the purpose of clicking. I would supply chapter and verse if
I felt they were really needed. (I vaguely recall mentioning this
issue in response to actual sites that come up now and again in
this forum?)
> 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.
OK. Fair enough. Let us agree at least that this is good advice
for an elementary course in web design. I am not patronising you
here, but making a serious point. It is quite common in courses
to be given certain safe rules that would stand people in good
stead till they understand better the issues surrounding it. It
is just that you and I differ from then on. You are more
sympathetic to there being such borders than me and are more
impressed with the reasons for them.
Some of this probably comes down to aesthetic taste. I do not say
that all link borders have to be ugly. They mostly are! But they
do not have to be. But, for them not to be, the designer needs to
think on how to make this so. He or she would need to think about
these borders and actually integrate them into a design where
they have a real aesthetic place. Do you know what I mean? I will
happily expand on this if you want, it is hugely interesting. I
am inclined to think it brings up less design problems, not more,
to generally leave them out!
You seem to be thinking along the lines of "Oh, they are not
naturally so ugly to start with" whereas I am thinking the very
opposite. Given this, it is natural for me to get a bit worried
about your "strong advice".
>
> 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 do not expect my opinion to count for anything based on any
reputation. You have a real name. What does it mean to me? You
are what your opinions are in this forum. I think your remark
here reveals a big mistake but I have been too rude already and
do not wish to offend you further.
Btw, I am not Mr. or Mrs. or Master or Miss dorayme. I am dorayme
and I say what I say and am what I am and inhabit (surely by now)
some of the best killfiles in the business. :)
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|