Comments on: Crimes Against Hypertext

By: Meitar

Meitar — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:52:31 +0000

I am wondering what others think of the full URL links?

I think we'd all do well to remember the fact that in Tim Berners-Lee's original vision of the Web, the URI was never intended to be user-visible! Naturally, my interpretation of this is that a link should be natural language, not a URL. :)

By: freddy

freddy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:37:51 +0000

Blaming the user for being “stupid” or even poorly educated is not new to the web, developers have been doing this since GUI interfaces were invented. It’s the developer’s job to design interfaces that are usable. What’s usable? Doesn’t this depend on your target user base? If your client wants ‘click here’ because the users are newbies or whatever the problem is, then so be it. I’m tired of seeing projects handed to smiling yes-ma’am consultants while I argue for elegant code or doing it ‘right’.

By: LadyNama

LadyNama — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:45:37 +0000

Well let’s also remember accessibility! “Click here” is not accessible for users using a screen reader. Many people use the scan setting which will scan all of the links. If the links are all “click here” how someone to know what the link is for?

I cannot stand lists of links that are full URL’s either. I am wondering what others think of the full URL links?

By: 5minuteargument

5minuteargument — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:11:14 +0000

@Yanni, @le sigh: However much you think your users understand “Click here” better, take into account what a screen full of “click here” links looks like – descriptive link text is good for scanning as well as careful reading.

There’s a very fine balance between linking your existing text in such a way that it is obviously a link (so you don’t need to write “Click here”) and not disrupting the reading flow by making the link too distracting. Techniques to achieve the latter include shortening links (appropriately, of course) and using border-bottom instead of text-decoration.

Don’t forget that an increasing number of users don’t actually “click” either – if you really think your users are that stupid, you should probably reword all your “click here” links to “activate this link” or something equally ridiculous. Please don’t adopt bad practises because you think some of your users are stupid – that’s a sure-fire way of making everyone stupid whether they like it or not.

By: le sigh

le sigh — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:38:10 +0000

The eternal design dilemma: do I remove “click here” because leaving it in is stupid, or do I leave it in place because my users are stupid?

The only solution seems to be to sell everything I own and live in the woods. :(

By: Yanni

Yanni — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:43:07 +0000

I agree with the idea of right usage of links, but I am afraid you are missing out “the average target visitor” in the equation.
Click Here is really a bad way of linking but it’s so popular, because so many people are asking WHERE DO I CLICK while staring at a link. This is what moved most of designers to use this pointless click here link. One of my customers last week actually forced me to use CLICK HERE (of course I added at least a description of what you expect to get from the link) for his links because he knows what his customers are like with computers and internet.
The above instructions and comments all have a point but I am afraid only work best for more advanced users.
Then again, you may claim ok, let’s educate the masses, but who is going to sacrifice first their usability of their site and eventually their online sales to educate the masses? Any volunteers? :)

By: mgaigg

mgaigg — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:41:06 +0000

In the beginning was the link… PLEASE (pleeaaasssse) make links meaningful, not because this article or WCAG tells you, no, for your own good.

I suggest the following blog entry Design Guidelines: Links that outlines important rules for creating links.

Personally I still cannot understand that – like Andrew says – links are so easy to create but still not done right.

By: Stevie D

Stevie D — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:45:06 +0000

@chaoley

The title attribute is not optional, it’s there for accesibility reasons. Visually impaired users with screen readers for example.

The title attribute is optional. It should only be used where additional text, over and above the link text and surrounding context, may be needed for users to understand the link destination/purpose. Adding a title attribute to help accessibility won't always help. Screen readers may or may not read the title attribute, depending on type and configuration - you can't rely on the title being read, so you should make sure that the link makes sense even without the title. But if all you're doing with the title is adding redundancy or repetition, don't! People using screen readers don't want to hear "Link: Contact us. Visit our contact page" - they know what "Link: Contact us" means, and having it repeated is irritating, unnecessary, time-wasting and insulting.

By: Wynnefield

Wynnefield — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:41:49 +0000

oh well, just ignore me … just like these posts have ignored my paragraph and break tags … :-(

By: Wynnefield

Wynnefield — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:40:37 +0000

Please ignore my nasty spacing. I accidentally removed the break tags thinking they were adding an additional line in the wrong places. Should look more like this:


Job Title of the Position or Role
This is a one or two line summary of the job description and/or requirements of the position ... More >>
Job Title of the Position or Role
More >>
Job Title of the Position or Role
More >>