|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/11/97 11:43
In article <MPG.1e926fa2503674ad98987c@news.isp.com>,
Neredbojias <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
> 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:
> > 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.
>
Common Boji, admit it, you don't so rarely agree with me! You
have basically accepted that you must one day meet Officer White
and much besides.
Actually I would bet quids on how the parties split on this issue
according to their taste in photography, painting, housing, and
maybe even movies and sheer technical knowledge of html and css.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|