Posted by usenet+2004 on 09/26/06 15:54

David Segall:

> Let me provide a specific and common example. "Click on the picture to
> see an enlarged image" such as <http://shirley.profectus.com.au>.

'Click' assumes both that the user's primary way of following a link is
by pressing a button and that clicking can only perform a retrieval.
Neither assumption always stands on the WWW. There are other ways of
following a link, e.g, by voice activation, by keyboard input, by
keypad input, by pointing with a pen, and there are other actions that
can be performed by clicking.

> Compare that with this page from another proponent of "No Mechanics"
> <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/ragbag.html>. There is only a
> very subtle indication that the picture is a link but if you move your
> mouse over it you discover that it is. However, you still don't know
> if clicking on it will provide a PDF on how Glasgow University
> welcomes new students or an enlarged image.

I can see immediately that it is a link by its blue border. There is a
fundamental difference, though, between this ornamental image, if the
author would permit me that, and your gallery of pictures. Your
gallery is designed for people to view the larger pictures, isn't it?,
whereas it is really neither here nor there if a user misses that the
ornamental image is a link to a larger version.

> The Style Guide was clearly intended to promote a standard way of
> writing hypertext so that users would have a common view of links and
> did not need an explanation. Any other conventions or standards should
> be welcomed and adhered to but surely it is preferable if the user is
> told what to expect rather than be forced to experiment.

I would think it is still more preferable that the user knows what's
going to happen without being told and without having to experiment.

--
Jock

[Back to original message]