|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: November 07, 2002 The Syntax of Links -- "Anyway, it gets me to asking questions like: what is the proper grammatical usage of a link? What are the functions of a link? It links, first and foremost: it can cite or it can trigger. But before the reader follows where it leads, it sits there on the screen, highlighted, set apart. What does the eye make of that?" (Comments: Thanks Timo.)
Reader Comments...
Links tell me a lot about a site even when I don't follow them. More and more often I see sites where all of the links are pulled out into menus and navigation buttons instead of being incorporated into the main text. This can be a side effect of using templates and CMS to publish content where only plain text can be put into a place-holder, but it is also done so that peoples words aren't cluttered by links. Then there are the 'dreamweaver donnas' who can't have a link without a hover effect. Sometimes the colour changes, sometimes the underline is hidden or made visible. If a piece of writing contains a few links (I'm not sure what the optimum ration should be) then I will assume that the author has spent some time with the words and I will probably take it more seriously than some text with no links. I nearly always look at the URL for links in the status bar before I commit to following it. If I know the domain then I may follow it, but if i don't recognise it then I will either leave it, or I may launch it in a new window to give it a 10 second reconnisance. Webword is a 'linky' site, which gives it a different feel from Joel On Software, which only has a few links and is much more insular because of it. Useit.com has very few outward links and feels less connected because of it. I will note, though, that in sites by designers the new window is de rigeur and in the sites by more technical geeks it's nowhere to be seen. Likewise, designers' pages tend not to differentiate visually between links that have been visited and those that haven't, where code-geeks' pages stick with the default of rendering them differently. Naive coding rules! Posted by: Mac on November 8, 2002 03:25 AM
I will note, though, that in sites by designers the new window is de rigeur and in the sites by more technical geeks it's nowhere to be seen. Likewise, designers' pages tend not to differentiate visually between links that have been visited and those that haven't, where code-geeks' pages stick with the default of rendering them differently. Choice of link colors may not be the fault of the designer per se, especially if the client (aka the source of income) cannot fathom the purpose of link colors. I've had clients who wanted six links in two paragraphs in SIX DIFFERENT COLORS WITH NO UNDERLINES! I tried to explain that links are traditionally blue/underlined when on a light background because people see them and know they are links, and that multiple colored links with no underline doesn't convey "Hey, this is a link!" Didn't matter. Wanted the multiple link colors. Just like a mobile to baby in a crib...oooohhh! aaaaah!!! Posted by: Darin on November 8, 2002 02:42 PM
the baby crib analogy is a hoot. gotta remember that one. one of my clients asked me to fix the links in his site. seems i was inconsistent. some links were blue and some were purple... ha! Posted by: dix on November 8, 2002 05:00 PM
Many clients, and most designers, strongly oppose different colours/styles for visited links, they think it looks scruffy. And I've genuinely had clients who wanted their links to not look too "linky" or "Webish" as they didn't want to encourage people to use them. The new window thing is really hard to fight against, virtually every client insists on it, they're gripped by irrational fears of people leaving their site and not returning. What they never consider is how much more frustrating the Web would be to use if every site worked that way.
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |