link colours, my 5 cents

[allan <la...@inet.uni2.dk>]

link colours:

maybe i have missed some discussions about this but please
take a look at enclosed concerning link colours. copy the
dir along our other dirs in dst_html.

there is - or should be - a red line in the way the links
are and behave :)



****MENU
- i have reverted to NON-underlined hobering [a matter of taste].
- instead the hover-color is BLACK [so it's not fading]
- NOTE. the selected item has NO hover deliberatly [the
hovering effect is normally an effect to tease you to click
and there is really no point in teasing a user to click what
he already has selected IMO]
- NOTE. the link at the menu-title has gone [i'm
conservative i dont like title-links at all]


****BREADCRUMB
- same as always, because it's cool ;)


****NORMAL TEXT
- same as always, because it's normal ;) [that is blue
underlined and red underlined for visited and the greyish
for hovering]


****ALL TOCS [but not all lists]
- by default they share the same colours as normal text but
are not underlined, which would be too noisy.
- hovering is underlined and the hover-colours stay to the
nature of the link (blue or red for unvisted and visited respectively)


****ALL LISTS [but no TOCS]
- same as NORMAL TEXT [as per per's wish]


****HEADERS (h*)
- not links in my book though i admit they seem very
user-friendly. i can live with clicking on the 'top-image'
to get to the top whereafter i can easily see which links i
have visited because they will be red. (i told you i am conservative)


****SRC
- no hover or anything [i really think this should be a cool
image instead]


what you people think?

./allan

Re: link colours, my 5 cents

[Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>]

Thanks Allan,

I'm +0:+1 on everything, but -1 on the following:

 >
 > ****MENU
 > - NOTE. the selected item has NO hover deliberatly [the
 > hovering effect is normally an effect to tease you to click
 > and there is really no point in teasing a user to click what
 > he already has selected IMO]

this is only true, if you have just clicked on the menu item, if you are 
deep inside docs and want to get on the top of the docs, you have 
another way to do that in addition to the breadcrumb. So I don't see why 
  the reluctance to make it clickable here. If you don't want don't click.

This feature doesn't get on your way and doesn't mislead/confuse users.

we have discussed this already, why repeating it again?

 > - NOTE. the link at the menu-title has gone [i'm
 > conservative i dont like title-links at all]

Same as above, it doesn't get on your way. If it does, my suggestion to 
have its hover as non-hover, so it *always* looks the same. Though it's 
still clickable for those who try.

 > ****HEADERS (h*)
 > - not links in my book though i admit they seem very
 > user-friendly. i can live with clicking on the 'top-image'
 > to get to the top whereafter i can easily see which links i
 > have visited because they will be red. (i told you i am conservative)

Again make it the *same* with hover or not, so you never know that it's 
clickable until you try. Those who will discover and find it useful will 
use it, those who won't will not notice anything unusual.

I don't understand why some of you have problems with hidden subtle 
features which don't change the way you use the site, while they are 
useful to some other people. At least please explain me why do you 
against these.

__________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/     mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org
mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com
http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org   http://ticketmaster.com



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help@perl.apache.org